Court Opinion

ID: 9397833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 17:01:04.530005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:28.025233
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MICHAEL L. WAGNER,                                    )
                                                      )
                               Plaintiff,             )
                                                      )
               v.                                     )       Civil Action No. 23cv1468 (UNA)
                                                      )
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, et al.,                     )
                                                      )
                               Defendants.            )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis (ECF No. 2) and for the reasons discussed below, DISMISSES the complaint (ECF No.

1) and this civil action without prejudice.

       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).

                                                 1
       Plaintiff demands compensation totaling $20 million without setting forth a short and plain

statement of his entitlement to relief. Instead, the complaint cursorily jumps from topic to topic,

to include, it appears, work requirements for receipt of benefits from the government and an

alleged conspiracy to deprive him of food stamps. As drafted, plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet

the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a). The Court will dismiss the complaint and

this civil action without prejudice. An Order is issued separately.

DATE: May 26, 2023                                           ______________________
                                                             DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH
                                                             United States District Judge

                                                 2