# Woubetu v. People Who Go to Saint Mary's Church

> District Court, District of Columbia · July 29, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7639630

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** July 29, 2022
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Carl J. Nichols
- **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/7639630

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)
SAMSON WOUBETU, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 22-cv-2164 (UNA)
)
PEOPLE WHO WORK AT ST. MARY’S )
CHURCH, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed

in forma pauperis and pro se Complaint. See ECF No. 1 & 2. The Court grants the application

and, for the reasons discussed below, dismisses the Complaint.

A pro se litigant’s pleading is held to less stringent standards than the standard applied to

a formal pleading drafted by lawyer. 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 of the Federal Rules 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). Rule 8 gives fair notice to the

defendant 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).

1
The Complaint alleges in vague terms that certain defendants “held” plaintiff’s wife, called

plaintiff “Satan,” and “oppose[] God & the Saints.” Compl. at 1, ECF No. 1 (page number

designated by CM/ECF). Further, it is alleged that Barack Obama “refused” to stop defendants

“from harassing and attacking” plaintiff. Id. Missing, however, is a statement establishing a basis

for this Court’s jurisdiction and a demand for relief. Furthermore, there are so few factual

allegations that defendants cannot reasonably be expected to identify the claim or claims brought

against them. As drafted, the Complaint fails to comply with the minimum pleading standard set

forth in Rule 8(a) and, therefore, must be dismissed. A separate order will issue.

DATE: July 29, 2022 /s/
CARL J. NICHOLS
United States District Judge

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7639630. Public record. Not legal advice.