FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MATTHEW IRVIN,

Plaintiff, v.

BARBARA SHARIEF, et al., Defendants.

JUN 262017 Clerk, U.S. District &; Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia

Civil Action No. 17-1128 (UNA)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint.

The Court notes 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 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 claims 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).

*2 Based on the Court's review of the complaint, its allegations are so vague and confusing that no defendant can be expected to prepare a substantive response to it. Plaintiff does not articulate a cognizable legal claim, and his complaint otherwise fails to meet the standard set forth in Rule 8(a). The Court, therefore, will dismiss the complaint and this civil action without prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: June 25, 2017