# Irvin v. Sharief > District Court, District of Columbia · June 26, 2017 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4181866 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia - **Decided:** June 26, 2017 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Judge Tanya S. Chutkan - **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/4181866 ## Opinion text FIL§E§D UNITED sTATES DISTRICT CoURT JUN 2 6»:2017 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. DiStIlCt & Bankruptcy Courts for the D|strict of Columbia MATTHEW IRVIN, Plaintiff, v. : Civil Action No. 17-1128 (UNA) BARBARA SHARIEF, et al., 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 notes 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 must comply with the F ederal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tz`sch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. l987j. 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 claims 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). Based on the Court’s review of the complaint, its allegations are so vague and confusing that no defendant can be expected to prepare a substantive response to it. Plaintiff does not articulate a cognizable legal claim, and his complaint otherwise fails to meet the standard set forth in Rule'8(a). The Court, therefore, will dismiss the complaint and this civil action without prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandurn Opinion is issued separately. / DATE; fw ”Z§,Q°/;L /cww Q