# Julius v. Branch Metro Bus Train

> District Court, District of Columbia · May 14, 2012

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2662430

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** May 14, 2012
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2662430

## Opinion text

FILED
MAY 1 4 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Courts for the District of Columbia

TYRONE JULIUS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 12 0773
)
MRS. BRANCH METRO BUS AND TRAIN, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of three civil complaints filed by plaintiff

along with applications to proceed in forma pauperis. The court will grant the applications and

dismiss the complaints.

The court has reviewed plaintiffs complaints, keeping in mind that complaints filed by

pro se litigants 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) 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). 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

1
doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977).

These complaints contain neither a short and plain statement of a claim showing

plaintiffs entitlement to relief nor any indication of the claims asserted against the defendants.

As drafted, the complaints fail to comply with Rule 8(a) and all will be dismissed.

An Order is issued separately.

DATE:~ 5DJ .:>_o 1.}..

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2662430. Public record. Not legal advice.