Court Opinion

ID: 9367635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 16:00:47.314343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:02.238755
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SAMSON WOUBETU,                                 )
                                                )
                Plaintiff,                      )
                                                )
        v.                                      )         Civil Action No. 22-3848 (UNA)
                                                )
CHERNET YIGREM, et al.,                         )
                                                )
                Defendants.                     )

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

        This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court grants the application and, for the reasons

discussed below, the dismisses the complaint.

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

formal pleading drafted by lawyer. 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).

        This complaint alleges in vague terms that defendants “have refused” plaintiff, that

“Priest Metenu . . . wants to kill” plaintiff, that “all priests have been threatening” plaintiff, and

                                                    1
that “other priests and Christian people” disrespect plaintiff. Compl. at 1. Further, it alleges that

unidentified persons consider plaintiff to be “Satan.” Id. Missing from the complaint, however,

is a statement establishing a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction and a demand for relief.

Furthermore, there are so few factual allegations that defendants cannot reasonably be expected

to identify the claim or claims brought against them, rendering them unable to prepare a proper

response.

       As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with the minimum pleading standard set forth in

Rule 8(a) and, therefore, must be dismissed. A separate order will issue.

DATE: January 31, 2023                                        /s/
                                                              CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
                                                              United States District Judge

                                                  2