# Brett v. Bush

> District Court, District of Columbia · February 4, 2009

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2668699

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** February 4, 2009
- **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/2668699

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FEB - 4 2009
NANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON ClERK
) U.S. DISTRICT COURT'
FRANK BRETT,
)
Plaintiff, )
)
Civil Action No.
v. )
) 09 0213
GEORGE BUSH, et aI., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff s 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) 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

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

I ~I
There appear to be so many factual allegations against so many defendants that the Court

cannot discern what claim or claims he brings against each defendant. The complaint does not

set forth a short and plain statement of plaintiff s claims, and, as drafted, it fails to "give the

defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1957). For these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed

without prejudice for its failure to comply with Rule 8(a). An Order consistent with this

Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2668699. Public record. Not legal advice.