*1
FILED
OCT 242017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
| L. Ruther, | ) | | :--: | :--: | | | ) | | Plaintiff, | ) | | | ) | | v. | ) Civil Action No. 17-1686 (UNA) | | | ) | | Michael Tipsurd, | ) | | | ) | | Defendant. | ) |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
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 complaints to contain "(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).
*2 Plaintiff resides in Manassas, Virginia. He has filed a purported complaint against an individual in West Virginia, mentioning fraud and contract. Beyond those words, the complaint is incomprehensible and thus fails to provide any notice of a claim and the basis of federal court jurisdiction. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: October 19, 2017