The opinion
FILED
6/29/2020
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Columbia
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANBASA TRAZELL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 20-1609 (UNA)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF
No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. 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 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
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). Still,
pro se litigants 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
complaints to contain “(1) 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 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 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, mount an
adequate defense, and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v.
1
Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). It also assists the court in determining whether it
has jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, has filed a Complaint for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief against the District of Columbia. The complaint is nearly impossible to follow.
Plaintiff begins: “In November 2019 it was discovered from a FOIA request that during the
Department of Correction’s hiring process, official forms were altered giving the presumption of
unsuitability; thus, permanently barring complainant from employment.” Compl. at 2. The
wide-ranging allegations that follow are “rambling, disjointed, incoherent” and “confusing” and
thus “patently fail [Rule 8(a)’s] standard[.]” Jiggetts v. D.C., 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C.
2017), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. D.C., No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017).
Therefore, this case will be dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
SIGNED: EMMET G. SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATE: June 29, 2020
2