Court Opinion

ID: 2665039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-04-04 07:02:48.853518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:33.433074
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA                                     NOv     - 5 2010
                                                                                              U.S. District & B ~   ~
                                              )
                                                                                       Courts    the ~lstrict c
                                                                                                              of    ~
Joan F. M. Malone,

       Plaintiff,
                                              )
               v.                             )       Civil Action No.           10 1901
Eleanor H. Norton et al.,
                                              )
       Defendants.                            )

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and

application for leave to proceed in formapauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis

application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading

requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is frivolous.

       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

complaints to contain "(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction

[and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355

F.3d 661,668-7 1 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair

notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate

defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75

F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977).