Court Opinion

ID: 9406356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 18:01:42.090861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:29.191789
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ALONZO BRADLEY,                               )
                                              )
               Plaintiff,                     )
                                              )
       v.                                     )         Civil Action No. 23-0715 (UNA)
                                              )
KAREN PEVLAR, et al.,                         )
                                              )
               Defendants.                    )

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s May 3, 2023,

Order (ECF No. 4) denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis and plaintiff’s pro se

complaint (ECF No. 1). The Court grants the motion and finds that plaintiff makes an adequate

showing of his indigence. And for the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses the

complaint without prejudice.1

       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

1
 Because plaintiff’s “Motion to Modify” (ECF No. 3) is, essentially, a duplicate of the
Complaint, this motion will be denied.
                                                  1
determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498

(D.D.C. 1977).

       It appears that plaintiff, a resident of Capac, Michigan, is the guardian of a minor on

whose behalf he manages the proceeds of a settlement. It further appears that plaintiff is

dissatisfied with the financial institution, doing business in Tacoma, Washington, where the

proceeds are deposited. He seeks authorization to deposit or invest the proceeds elsewhere.

Missing are facts establishing a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction and plaintiff’s entitlement to

the relief he demands. As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with the minimal pleading

standard set forth in Rule 8(a), as it fails to put defendants on notice of the claims against them.

Accordingly, the Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice. A separate order will issue.

                                                       ANA C. REYES
DATE: June 30, 2023                                    United States District Judge

                                                  2