Opinion
Civil Action 22-0263 (UNA)
02-23-2022
OMAR ALEJANDRO MEDINA, Plaintiff, v. BOB BONTA, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint.
A pro se litigant's pleadings are held to less stringent standards than the standard 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 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).
Although difficult to follow, the thrust of plaintiff's complaint appears to be that the Attorney General of California, Rob Bonta, has failed to “liv[e] up to his duties as . . . [A]ttorney [G]eneral, ” and has failed to address plaintiff's complaints regarding his privacy. Among a litany of other things, plaintiff alleges that he complained to the former Attorney General and Governor of Californioa “about [his] privacy at home, ” has long “endure[d] harassment in [his] home, ” that “[t]hings . . . got[] worse when [he] complaint about [his] 4th Amendment right, ” that he has “powerful enemies that want to assassinate” him and that “people . . . are opening the door to let [his] enemies in [his] home to have a shot at” him, and that “[i]t is the government's job to make sure privacy laws are enforced.” Dkt. 1 at 5. As drafted, plaintiff's complaint fails to comply with the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a). Plaintiff neither states a basis for this Court's jurisdiction nor sets forth a short and plain statement of claim. Furthermore, plaintiff articulates no basis for an award of $41 million.
The Court will, accordingly, grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
A separate order will issue.