The opinion
FILED
7/6/2020
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Columbia
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WILLIAM LEE GRANT II, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 20-1804 (UNA)
)
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF )
OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review of this pro se plaintiff’s application to proceed
in forma pauperis and his civil complaint.
The Court has reviewed the plaintiff’s 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 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even 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 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 Court has reviewed plaintiff’s “Civil Liberties Complaint” and concludes that it fails
to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a). Many factual allegations are made,
yet no identifiable legal claim emerges. Further, plaintiff demands no particular form of relief.
Therefore, the Court will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and will
dismiss the complaint. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued
separately.
DATE: July 6, 2020 /s/
JAMES E. BOASBERG
United States District Judge