Court Opinion

ID: 9926226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 15:01:04.040094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:18.566376
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ROBERT JAMES SWINT,                           )
                                              )
               Plaintiff,                     )
                                              )       Civil Action No. 23-03881 (UNA)
               v.                             )
                                              )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.,              )
                                              )
                Defendants.                   )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF

No. 1, and application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the

application and dismiss the complaint.

       Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied

to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still,

pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F.

Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) 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). It “does not require

detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-

harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted).

       The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted

so that they can prepare a responsive answer, mount an adequate defense, and determine whether
the doctrine of res judicata applies. See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

The standard also assists the court in determining whether it has jurisdiction over the subject

matter.

          Plaintiff’s disjointed pleading comprised mostly of illegible scribbles “patently fail[s]”

Rule 8’s standard. Jiggetts v. District of Columbia, 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d sub

nom. Cooper v. District of Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017).

Consequently, this case will be dismissed by separate order.

                                                       _________/s/______________
                                                       CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
Date: January 23, 2024                                 United States District Judge

                                                  2