Court Opinion

ID: 9401587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-13 17:02:42.701558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:53.779901
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SAMSON WOUBETU,                               )
                                              )
               Plaintiff,                     )
                                              )
       v.                                     )         Civil Action No. 23-0943 (UNA)
                                              )
CLARIDGE TOWER, 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).

                                                  1
       Plaintiff alleges, in wholly conclusory fashion, that the District of Columbia Housing

Authority discriminates against him “by put[t]ing [him] in the waiting list longer than two or

four years.” Compl. at 1. Plaintiff once lived at Claridge Tower, and now “want[s] to get [his

own] place” to avoid having “[t]he shelters tak[e]” his belongings. Id. There are practically no

facts alleged, such that the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirement of Rule

8(a). Missing are a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of claim, and a

demand for relief from the named defendants.

       A separate order will issue.

                                                      /s/
                                                      TANYA S. CHUTKAN
DATE: June 12, 2023                                   United States District Judge

                                                 2