UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SALIF A. KOUROUMA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 24-2762 (UNA) ) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint (ECF No. 1),

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), and related motions (ECF Nos.

5-7). The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application, dismiss the complaint without

prejudice, and deny the other motions as moot.

Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards” than those

applied to pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner,

(1972). Still, pro

se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch,

(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,

(2009) (quotations

omitted). 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

1 whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. See Brown v. Califano,

(D.D.C.

1977).

The Court has reviewed all of plaintiff’s filings and has not identified a viable legal

claim. The complaint identifies the United States Government, the Supreme Court, the President

of the United States, the United States Congress, and plaintiff’s ex-wife as defendants, yet

includes neither a statement of claim nor a description of plaintiff’s entitlement to relief.

Scattered throughout plaintiff’s filings are references to proceedings in Michigan courts, child

support payments, and “children benefits.” Plaintiff demands custody of his children and an

award of $19.5 million, yet states no basis for the Court’s jurisdiction and alleges no facts linking

any of the federal defendants to any of the matters mentioned in his filings. No defendant is on

fair notice of the claims against it.

As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule

8(a). An Order will issue separately.

DATE: October 18, 2024 CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge

2