Court Opinion

ID: 9409322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-17 20:01:17.163563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:49.566471
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ROBIN HEAD,                                           )
                                                      )
               Plaintiff,                             )
                                                      )
       v.                                             )    Civil Action No. 23-01823 (UNA)
                                                      )
U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT,                             )
                                                      )
               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 pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application and, for the

reasons discussed below, dismiss the complaint without prejudice.

       The Court must construe a pro se complaint liberally, keeping in mind that complaints

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

drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). But even a pro se litigant

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, a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, “would like to know how [she] can access”

financial assistance through “Federal Covid Relief Funding” programs. Compl. at 1. Although

she received “3 stimulus checks,” she alleges “they ere taken by 3 permanent rent increases” and

other expenses. Id. Plaintiff complains that she is “surrounded by new high end cars, BMW,

Lexus, Teslas, etc.” purchased by other individuals who received alternative forms of assistance

during the pandemic, yet she faces eviction and remains “under siege by the very act of the

National Emergency Proclamation of 2019[.]” Id. She demands “back pay plus damages” to

address her financial situation and “psychological abuses.” Id. Missing, however, is a statement

that plaintiff is entitled to the relief she demands. The complaint raises questions and expresses

plaintiff’s frustration at benefits awarded to others yet does not state whether plaintiff herself is

qualified for or entitled to receive further benefits, or whether such benefits still are available.

As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standards of Rule 8(a).

        An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
                                                                         2023.07.17
                                                                         10:03:13 -04'00'
DATE: July 17, 2023                                     TREVOR N. McFADDEN
                                                        United States District Judge

                                                   2