Opinion
Civil Action 1:21-cv-01148 (UNA)
05-27-2021
LUTHER STAPLETON, Plaintiff, v. PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
TREVOR N. McFADDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff's 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), by which the court is required to dismiss a case “at any time” if it determines that the action is frivolous.
The court has reviewed the plaintiff's complaint and exhibits, keeping in mind that a complaint filed by a pro se litigant is held to a less stringent standard than that applied to a formal pleading drafted by a lawyer. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even a pro se litigant, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F.Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987); see also Yellen v. U.S. Bank, 301 F.Supp.3d 43, 47 (D.D.C. 2018). 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).
This complaint utterly fails to meet even the minimal pleading set forth in Rule 8(a). It is illogical, incoherent, and filled with the sort of “fantastic or delusional scenarios, ” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989), warranting dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). More, it “is patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F.Supp.2d 177, 178 (D.D.C. 2011) affd, 455 Fed.Appx. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (quoting Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). No. defendant should “be forced to spend time and energy in attempting to decipher plaintiffs utterly confusing and lengthy pleading.” Hamrick v. United States, No. 08-1698, 2009 WL 8747880, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 30, 2009) (footnote omitted).
Consequently, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this memorandum.