# Ciriello v. Executive Office of the President > District Court, District of Columbia · January 15, 2015 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2770377 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia - **Decided:** January 15, 2015 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Judge Christopher R. Cooper - **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/2770377 ## Opinion text UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MARK S. CIRIELLO, ) Plaintiff, Case: 1:15—cv-00065 Assigned To : Unassigned Assign. Date : 1/15/2015 Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil V. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed as frivolous. 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 US. 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). The so-called complaint merely refers to its attachments — principally copies of letters addressed to various federal government entities — and recounts plaintiff’s lack of success in filing lawsuits against the State of Connecticut. The pleading neither alleges facts nor articulates a cognizable legal claim. As drafted, the complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a), and it therefore will be dismissed. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. DATE: W I) 2” 5" I United States District Ju ge --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2770377. Public record. Not legal advice.