# Jenkins v. Gautama Jindal

> District Court, District of Columbia · October 2, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9881660

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** October 2, 2023
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Dabney L. Friedrich
- **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/9881660

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GARY V. JENKINS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 23-2724 (UNA)
)
GAUTAMA JINDAL, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A pro se litigant’s pleading is held to less stringent standards than would be 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 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).

Aside from a long list of defendants, the complaint merely states:

Plaintiff avers that DEFENDANTS are ASSAULTING
PLAINTIFF. Fourteenth Amendment violations include: 1)
Invidious Disparate treatment. 2) Producing false medical records.
3) Human Rights Violations. Damages include: Lost Productivity
and Mental Exhaustion.
Compl. (Dkt. #1) at 1 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff demands an award of $200,000. Id. Wholly

absent are factual allegations, “accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

1

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9881660. Public record. Not legal advice.