Opinion
Civil Action No. 08 0670.
March 25, 2008
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint.
The Court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint, 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). 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).
Initially plaintiff appears to bring a claim against the United States Treasury regarding a guaranteed student loan. It is unclear what claims plaintiff brings against which of the named defendants; nor is it clear whether she brings any claims against the dozens of federal, state and local government entities, non-profit organizations, media outlets, and financial institutions listed elsewhere in the complaint. As drafted, the Court concludes that the complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a), and for this reason, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.