The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TYESHA N. ISOM, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 24-1506 (UNA)
)
TEXAS STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No.
1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the
in forma pauperis application and dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards” than those
applied to pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, 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 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). It “does not
require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-
unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations
omitted). In addition, Rule 8(d) states that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and
direct.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(d)(1). “Taken together, [those provisions] underscore the emphasis
placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules.” Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 669
(D.C. Cir. 2004) (cleaned up). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of
1
the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer, mount an adequate
defense, and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. See Brown v. Califano, 75
F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).
According to plaintiff, her “civil union partner, Zachary Cowan” is missing, either having
run away or having been abducted. Compl. at 2. This appears to be the sole cogent allegation in
the complaint, which otherwise is a disorganized document raising myriad topics, from property
rights, see id. at 3, to bank fraud, see id. at 4, and to violations of the Eighth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, see id.
As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule
8(a). The complaint fails to put defendant on notice of the claim(s) against him; the basis for this
Court’s jurisdiction is unclear; and plaintiff does not set forth a basis for her demand for $500
million. The Court, therefore, will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An Order is issued
separately.
2024.07.24
14:25:43 -04'00'
DATE: July 24, 2024 TREVOR N. McFADDEN
United States District Judge
2