Court Opinion

ID: 9914078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-29 16:01:24.3248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:09.195474
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INEZ QTAISH,                                           )
                                                       )
               Plaintiff,                              )
                                                       )
       v.                                              )   Civil Action No. 23-3638 (UNA)
                                                       )
WASHINGTON, DC,                                        )
                                                       )
               Defendant.                              )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

forma pauperis (“IFP”) and her civil complaint. The IFP application is GRANTED and, for the

reasons stated below, the complaint and this civil action are DISMISSED without prejudice.

       Plaintiff’s complaint must be reviewed mindful 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, however, 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 pleading

standard set out in Rule 8 is to give sufficient fair notice to a defendant of the claim being

asserted so that the defendant may prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and to

enable a determination of 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 has attempted, unsuccessfully, to obtain a non-driver

identification card at the District of Columbia’s Department of Motor Vehicles, see Compl. at 1,

and to rent a Post Office Box, see id. at 2, because she was not receiving mail at her current

residence. The complaint neither articulates a legal claim nor demands relief of any sort.

Indeed, so few facts are alleged that the named defendant would have no adequate notice of the

legal claims. Consequently, as drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading

standard set forth in Rule 8.

       An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: December 28, 2023                              BERYL A. HOWELL
                                                     United States District Judge

                                                 2