Duran v. Trump
Opinion
FILED 5/27/2020 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DAVID DURAN,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01186 (UNA)
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review of this pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1,
and application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. Although 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 must comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Jarrell v. Tisch,
656 F. Supp. 237, 239(D.D.C. 1987). A complaint must
contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction
depends, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The
Rule’s purpose is “to ‘give the defendant fair notice of twhat the . . . claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 555(2007) (quoting Conley v.
Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 47(1957)).
This Complaint fails to meet Rule 8(a)’s minimal pleading standard. Rather than
articulating a legal claim, the pleading reads as Plaintiff’s musings about the economy, the
criminal justice system, and the impact of COVID-19, among other topics. It neither states the 1 basis for this Court’s jurisdiction nor includes a short and plain statement showing that the
plaintiff is entitled to the relief he demands.
The Court will grant the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and will
dismiss the Complaint and this civil action without prejudice. An Order will be issued
contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion.
DATE: May 27, 2020 CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge
2
Reference
- Status
- Published