Court Opinion

ID: 9379068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 16:01:16.369554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:47.621659
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PRINCESS MARIA SPENCER,                                )
                                                       )
               Plaintiff,                              )
                                                       )
       v.                                              )   Civil Action No. 23-0374 (UNA)
                                                       )
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,                              )
                                                       )
               Defendant.                              )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter is before the Court on review of this pro se plaintiff’s application to proceed

in forma pauperis and her civil complaint.

       The Court has reviewed the plaintiff’s complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed

by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than are applied to formal pleadings drafted

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

                                                  1
       Plaintiff alleges that she met with an employee of the Internal Revenue Service who

advised plaintiff she had “3 COVID stimulus checks” that “were stolen along with an amended

tax check [and] all [her] personal belongings” with proof, presumably of the theft, and the name

of the employee with whom plaintiff spoke. Compl. at 1. Missing from the complaint are

allegations establishing the grounds for this Court’s jurisdiction, a statement of the claim

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, and a demand for any particular relief. As drafted,

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

       The Court will grant the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2),

deny as moot her motion to issue subpoena (ECF No. 3) and will dismiss the complaint and this

civil action without prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued

separately.

                                                               /s/
                                                               RANDOLPH D. MOSS
DATE: March 13, 2023                                           United States District Judge

                                                  2