The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FILED
AUG 17 2021
SHAUN RUSHING, ) Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Columbia
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-02026 (UNA)
)
N.A.A.C.P., )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint and an accompanying application for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Plaintiff is a resident of Grand Rapids, Michigan, and has
sued the N.A.A.C.P., though provides no address for the defendant. Preliminarily, the Local Rules
of this court state: “[t]he first filing by or on behalf of a party shall have in the caption the name
and full residence address of the party.” LCvR 5.1(c). For reasons explained below, the court
will grant the IFP application and dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule 8(a).
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 and an adequate defense and
determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498
(D.D.C. 1977).
Here, the complaint merely alleges that plaintiff “was discriminated against by the
N.A.A.C.P. [from] 2004–2007[,]” and that plaintiff “asked for assistance, etc.[,] [b]ut was
ignored[.]” Plaintiff goes on to state that an unspecified “violation against [plaintiff] was clear
and on the record.” As a result, plaintiff seeks “110 trillion dollars.” The remainder of the
complaint is incomprehensible.
These ambiguous allegations fail to provide adequate notice of a claim. The causes of
action, and authority relied upon, if any, are completely undefined. The pleading also fails to set
forth allegations with respect to this court’s jurisdiction or venue, or a valid basis for an award of
damages. In fact, it is unclear what actual damages, if any, plaintiff has suffered. While plaintiff
mentions “discrimination,” there is no articulation of the specific circumstances, location, context,
or type, of any discrimination allegedly endured, or even who committed the alleged wrongdoing.
The complaint, therefore, fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order of
dismissal accompanies this memorandum opinion.
Date: August 17, 2021 /s/______________________
EMMET G. SULLIVAN
United States District Judge