Court Opinion

ID: 9366279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 16:01:17.708082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:51.234280
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ELLIS D. THOMAS, JR.,                                 )
                                                      )
                       Plaintiff,                     )
                                                      )
       v.                                             )      Civil Action No. 23-0106 (UNA)
                                                      )
D.C. LAW ENFORCEMENT, et al.,                         )
                                                      )
                       Defendants.                    )

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and

his pro se complaint. The Court will GRANT the application and, for the reasons stated below,

DISMISS the complaint.

        The Court is mindful 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). 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 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).

       Plaintiff alleges that defendant Thomas-Smith has made false reports about him to

various police forces in the Washington, D.C. area over the course of 20 years, and that
                                                1
defendant Lindsey is responsible for “never ending entrapment techniques” and “[t]errorizing

[plaintiff] at [his] jobs, relationships, etc.” Compl. at 4. Further, he alleges he has been

assaulted physically “multiple times over the years” “by multiple officers” assigned to various

divisions of the Metropolitan Police Department. See id. at 5. For the injuries allegedly

sustained, plaintiff demands an award of $7,750,000. See id.

       As drafted, this complaint runs afoul of Rule 8(a). What few factual allegations plaintiff

makes are far too vague to put any defendant on notice of plaintiff’s legal claims. It is not

enough, for example, that defendants are “depriving [plaintiff] of a job” or harassing, stalking,

and retaliating against him, Compl. at 4, without identifying specific incidents or explaining how

and when defendants have caused plaintiff harm.

       The Court will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss

the complaint. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: January 25, 2023                                 /s/
                                                       CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
                                                       United States District Judge

                                                  2