The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
MARK SMITH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01124 (UNA)
)
PENNDOT, )
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Currently before the court is plaintiff’s pro se complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The court grants plaintiff’s
IFP application and, for the reasons explained below, it dismisses this matter without prejudice.
Plaintiff, a resident of Chester, Pennsylvania, sues the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation. See Compl. at 1. He very broadly alleges that defendant has “violated [his]
privacy, and breach of contract, equal protection under the law.” See id. No supporting facts,
context, or details are provided to state, or even so much as infer, a cognizable legal claim. Indeed,
the relief sought is entirely unspecified.
Pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F.
Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a complaint 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 (2009). 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. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Here, as
presented, neither the court nor the defendant can reasonably be expected to identify plaintiff’s
intended claims.
Moreover, this matter presents no connection to the District of Columbia. Venue in a civil
action is proper only in (1) the district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the
same state in which the district is located, (2) in a district in which a substantial part of the events
or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred (or a substantial part of the property that is the
subject of the action is situated), or (3) in a district in which any defendant may be found, if there
is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Here, both
parties are located in Pennsylvania and, as pleaded, there is no allegation that any relevant events
or omissions giving rise to this case occurred in this District.
For these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies
this memorandum opinion.
_____/s/_____________
Date: May 24, 2024 AMIT P. MEHTA
United States District Judge