Opinion
Civil Action 22-0341 (UNA)
03-09-2022
OMAR ALEJANDRO MEDINA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AMIT P. MEHTA, 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).
Plaintiff's alleges violations of his constitutional rights, discusses a recent visit to a hospital emergency room, and touches on any number of topics. Nowhere does plaintiff state a basis for this Court's jurisdiction or a short and plain statement of claim. Furthermore, plaintiff articulates no basis for an award of $85 million. The Court will, accordingly, grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint without prejudice. A separate order will issue.