The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SHAUN RUSHING, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 23-00230 (UNA)
)
)
SOCIAL SECURITY )
ADMINISTRATION et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF
No. 1, and application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the
application and dismiss the complaint.
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 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). It “does not require
detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-
harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
1
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. See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).
The standard also assists the court in determining whether it has jurisdiction over the subject
matter.
Plaintiff, a resident of Washington, D.C., has sued the Social Security Commissioner. In
the single-page complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he “has been receiving SSI benefits” for “almost
15 years [and] has tried many times for Medicare insurance for which he is eligible his SSI
schedule is for a lifetime.” Plaintiff seeks “1.1 million dollars” and “Insurance Medicare and back
bonus[es].” Plaintiff neither identifies a “final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security,”
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), nor alleges sufficient facts from which the Commissioner may reasonably
identify the decision being challenged. Consequently, this action will be dismissed by separate
order.
_________/s/____________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
Date: February 24, 2023 United States District Judge
2