# Heard v. Department of Justice

> District Court, District of Columbia · February 27, 2017

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4149181

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** February 27, 2017
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Emmet G. Sullivan
- **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/4149181

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Robert Heard, )
)
Pla““‘ff’ ) Case; 1 ;17-<:\/-00345
) Assigned To : Unassigned
V~ § Assign. Date ; 2/27/2017
't‘ ;P G .C'. F-DECK
Dep’t ofJustice el al., ) Descnp lon m Se en lv ( )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMoRANDUM oPINIoN

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’ s pro se complaint and
application for leave to proceed informa 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 F ederal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pro se litigants must comply with the F ederal 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 “(l) 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 Ashcrofl‘ v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Cira/sky v. C]A, 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).

Plaintiff, a resident of Gainesville, Georgia, has submitted a complaint against the
Department of Justice; City of Gainesville, Georgia; Hall County, Georgia; Middle and High
School Students, and Mexicans. See Compl. Caption. He seeks “injunctive relief against all the
defendants.” Compl. at 3. The cryptic statements comprising the complaint are

incomprehensible and thus fail to provide any notice of a claim and a basis of federal court

jurisdiction Consequently, this case will be dismisses er accompanies this

l

Date: February , 2017 Unite<{States District Judge

Memorandum Opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4149181. Public record. Not legal advice.