Idrogo v. Foxx

MEMORANDUM OPINION KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs 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 because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pro se litigants 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 complaints to contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C.Cir.2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C.1977). Plaintiff is a Texas resident. He purports to sue U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, certain members of Congress, and other individuals. See Compl. Caption. The cryptic statements comprising the complaint provide no notice of claim or a basis for federal court jurisdiction and, thus, fail to comply with Rule 8(a). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.