The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
RITA FAYE McKEEMAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 26-1332 (UNA)
)
)
RANDY, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF
No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The Court grants the application and dismisses the
complaint without prejudice.
The Court holds a pro se complaint to a “less stringent standard[]” than is applied to a
pleading drafted by a lawyer. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, a pro se litigant
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). The Rule 8 standard
ensures that defendants receive fair notice of 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).
1
The Court dismisses the complaint for the simple reason that there are no factual allegations
supporting an actual legal claim. see Compl. at 4. Nor is there a statement demonstrating that this
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claim plaintiff intends to bring. See id. at 3. Missing,
too, is a demand for relief. See id. at 4.
As drafted, the complaint falls well short of Rule 8’s minimal pleading standard, and the
Court will dismiss it without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
DATE: June 3, 2026 /s/
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge
2