The opinion
PILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUl 13 L;~Jj
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District ann
Bankruptcy Courts
DERIAN DOUGLAS HICKMAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 09 1362
)
COPYRIGHT ROYALTY BOARD, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on review ofplaintiffs 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 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 pro se 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 ofthe 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).
Plaintiff demands "payment of any royalty payments for use of copyrights, trademarks,
[and] patents," an amount which "could exceed [$] 1 billion." Compl. at 1. As drafted, the
complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a) because it fails to include a short and plain statement
showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief. For this reason, the complaint will be dismissed
without prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
United States District Judge
Date: r ". ,.,