# Demos v. the United States Washington D.C. > District Court, District of Columbia · April 30, 2019 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4392623 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia - **Decided:** April 30, 2019 - **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/4392623 ## Opinion text FILED g UNITED STATES DISTRICT CoURT APR»3 0 2019 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. Dlstrict & Bankruptcy Courts for the Distrlct of Co|umbla JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, § Plaintiff, § v. § Civil Action No. l-l 9-cv-()025 3 (UNA) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., § Defendants. § ) MEMORANDUM oPINIc")N Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has now complied with this Court’s March 18, 2019 Order, ECF No. 6, supplying the requisite financial information pursuant to 28 U.`S.C. 1915(a)(2). Therefore, the Court will grant plaintiffs application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and will now turn to his complaint The complaint will be dismissed for failure to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. l98'7). Rule S(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 Ashcra]"t v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009`); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 66l, 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. Calz`fano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Plaintiff, a prisoner designated to Washington State Penitentiary, located in Walla Walla, Washington, sues the United States, the United States (Washington D.C.), the U.S. Attorney General, the U.S. Solicitor General, the President of the United States, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimum pleading standard set forth in Rule S(a). The ambiguous and rambling allegations comprising the complaint fail to provide adequate " notice of a claim. The pleading is mostly comprised of various abstract academic ruminations on disparate subjects including, -but not limited to: U.S. treaties, Articles of the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and the powers of U.S. Congress and the _U.S. Supreme Court. Additionally, plaintiff alleges a conspiracy wherein he suggests that [sic] “the District of Columbia is a corporation, a corporate enterprise controlled by the Getty’s, Morgan’s, Koch Brothers, Dupont’s, Mellons, Vanderbilts, Kaisers, Carnegies, Rockefeller’s Rothchild’s, the Queen of England, the Vatican Bank, the De-Medici Family, and fellow banking elite.” Plaintiff then goes on to list various grievances relating to his treatment at Washington State Penitentiary, however, he provides no supporting facts in this regard, nor any information as to how these bare allegations are related to the majority of the complaint The causes of action, if any, are completely undefined The l pleading also fails to set forth allegations with respect to this Court’s jurisdiction, or a valid basis for an award of damages ln fact, is it is unclear what damages pl »- Therefore, the Court will grant plaintiff s applicati '» auperz's and will d ceed in forma dismiss the complaint An Order consistent with this Mem¢¢ranu . is issued separately. ,. DATE; April 2019 `Ulited Stat§s District Judge --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4392623. Public record. Not legal advice.