SULTAN v. BUSINESS BUREAU, No. 1:2009cv02273 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 11/18/09. (ls, )

Download PDF
1111111111111.1111181111111 r FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NOV 3 0 20C9 Clerk, u.s. District and Bankruptcy Courts ANOKI PINON SULTAN, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 09 2273 BUSINESS BUREAU, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on consideration of plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se complaint. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the application and will dismiss the complaint. The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind 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 -1- 3 . doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). As drafted, the Count cannot discern plaintiffs claim or claims. Amidst the pleading's many biblical references, the Court cannot discern plaintiffs claim or claims against the named defendant. In addition, the complaint neither states a basis for this Court's jurisdiction nor includes a short and plain statement showing her entitlement to relief. For these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed for its failure to comply with Rule 8(a). An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. rf±~.~ United States District Judge -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.