Opinion
Civil Action No. 14–249
01-15-2014
Octavia Wells, Plaintiff, v. Vincent Gray, Defendant.
Octavia Wells, Washington, DC, pro se.
Octavia Wells, Washington, DC, pro se.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Reggie B. Walton, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the 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 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, 678–79, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 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).
The plaintiff is a resident of Washington, D.C. who purports to sue Mayor Vincent Gray. The one-page complaint consists of a demand for a jury trial and for relief in the form of “Impeachment[,] No re-election[,] Canidate [sic] Octavia Wells.” In addition, the complaint contains the following inexplicable statement: “Same–Sex Marriages & Taxzation [sic] w/o Representation,” and the plaintiff's offer to “accept his Salary & Commissions as pay.” The complaint fails to provide any notice of a claim or basis for federal court jurisdiction. Hence, this case will be dismissed.
A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.