The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AUG 2 5 2G10
Clerk U S Di t .
) Courts fo'r the ~r~~~ &t Bankruptcy
IC of Columbia
Antonio Colbert, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No.
) 10 1436
Pre-Paid Legal Incorporated, )
)
Defendant. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis
application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading
requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
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
complaints 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355
F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 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 and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75
F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).
2
Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, sues a pre-paid legal service in Ada, Oklahoma,
for $7 million in damages. He lists defendant's address as a post office box. Plaintiff accuses
defendant of having "misrepresented" him "several times" and of having "bogously [sic]
terminated our contract." CompI. at 2. The vague accusations fail to provide adequate notice of
a claim. In addition, plaintiff has not provided a suitable address for serving the defendant with
process, which is the responsibility of the court officers in in forma pauperis proceedings. See
28 U.S.C. 1915(d). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
United States District Judge
Date: August~, 2010
2