Opinion

McNair v. Rei Co-Op

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Oct 1, 2020
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge Rudolph Contreras
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 12.8%

The opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT -4 2020

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Clerk, U.S. District ang

. Bankruptcy Courts

JIMMIE McNAIR, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

Vv. ) Civil Action No. 20-2185 (UNA)

)

REI CO-OP, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Court is mindful 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, however, 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).

Plaintiff alleges that a female employee of the RE] CO-OP store in Washington, D.C.

was “assaulting [his] integrity” when she approached him “alleging [he] had stolen something,

which [he] did.” Compl. at 1. He further alleges that, when he attempted to return an item to the

REI CO-OP store in Rockville, Maryland, an employee assaulted him by snatching a bag from

his hands and pointing a finger in his face. See id. Plaintiff asserts that such treatment violated

company policy, and he demands an award of $5 million. /d@. The complaint does not state a

basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction or include a short and plain statement showing

that plaintiff is entitled to relief. For these reasons, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a),

and the Court will dismiss it without prejudice.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: September 30, 2020 /s/

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.