Court Opinion

ID: 9409323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-17 20:01:19.658325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:49.567503
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FRANTZ GERMAIN,                               )
                                              )
               Plaintiff,                     )
                                              )
       v.                                     )         Civil Action No. 23-1723 (UNA)
                                              )
BROWARD COUNTY                                )
GOVERNMENT, et al.,                           )
                                              )
               Defendants.                    )

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Now before the Court is plaintiff Frantz Germaine’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application, and for the reasons stated

below, dismiss the complaint.

       A pro se litigant’s pleading is held to less stringent standards than would be applied to a

formal pleading drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro

se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch,

656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires

that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s

jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The

purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim

being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense, and to

determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498

(D.D.C. 1977).
       Suffice it to say that the complaint is difficult to follow. He brings this action against

elected officials in Broward County, Florida, and demands an award of $21 million, for reasons

that are not entirely clear. It appears that plaintiff, his former wife and minor child resided in

Broward County until the couple separated and his former wife moved to California with the

child. It further appears that plaintiff’s former wife filed for divorce and child custody in Placer

County, California, and that the California court’s decree, among other things, awarded sole

legal and physical custody of the child to plaintiff’s former wife and ordered the sale of the

family residence in Coconut Creek, Florida. Plaintiff’s claims appear to arise from the recording

and execution of the foreign judgment, pursuant to which plaintiff was evicted from the family

residence.

       Plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a).

Missing are statements demonstrating a basis for this Court jurisdiction and plaintiff’s

entitlement to relief. Even after reviewing hundreds of pages of exhibits attached to the

complaint, the Court cannot identify a viable legal claim against any of the named defendants.

       An Order is issued separately.
                                                                           2023.07.17
                                                                           10:23:25 -04'00'
                                                       TREVOR N. McFADDEN
DATE: July 17, 2023                                    United States District Judge