Court Opinion

ID: 2665040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-04-04 07:02:49.962879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:18.626976
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                                                                       FILED
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA                               NOV - 5 2010
                                                                                   Clerk, U.S.District & Bankruptcy
                                                                                  Courts for the District of Columbia
                                              1
Joan F. M. Malone,

       Plaintiff,
                                              1
                                              1       Civil Action No.

Former U.S. President
William J. Clinton et al.,

       Defendants.
                                              )

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis

application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading

requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is frivolous.

       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

complaints to contain "(I) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction

[and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355

F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair

notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate

defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75

F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977).