ADAMS v. HEAD et al, No. 1:2021cv02670 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 10/20/2021. (zsb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ADAMS v. HEAD et al Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DALE B. ADAMS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. CHRIS HEAD, et al., Defendants. FILED OCT 20 2021 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia Civil Action No. 21-2670 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION A pro se litigant’s pleadings are held to less stringent standards than would be 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 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). According to plaintiff, any number of local, state, and federal officials are violating rights protected under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States 1 Dockets.Justia.com Constitution. For example, plaintiff alleges that defendants have hacked his computer for the purpose of abridging rights to free expression and association, subjected him to electronic surveillance, searched and seized property, threatened him with detention, and otherwise have caused him physical pain, mental distress, and monetary loss. Notwithstanding the length of the complaint and the breadth of topics it addresses, the Court cannot identify a short and plain statement showing plaintiff’s entitlement to the relief he demands. As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a), and no defendant can be expected to prepare a proper response to it. For these reasons, the Court will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An Order is issued separately. DATE: October 20, 2021 /s/ JAMES E. BOASBERG 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.
