The opinion
FILED
OCT 2 3 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clark, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Courts for the District of Columbia
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
RA YNEKA WILLIAMSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
Civil Action No. 12 1728
HILLARY CLINTON, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs application to proceed in forma
pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the
complaint.
The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro
' ' ' '
se Jitigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even prose litigants, however, must
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239
(D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) ofthe 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). The purpose of the minimum
standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to
prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine
of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977).
The complaint is so incoherently written that the Court discerns no viable claim against the
named defendant within this Court's subject matter jurisdiction and no clear statement showing
plaintiffs entitlement to the relief she seeks. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
2