*1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

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). "[A] complaint that is excessively long, rambling, disjointed,

*2 incoherent, or full of irrelevant and confusing material does not meet [Rule 8's] liberal pleading requirement." T.M. v. D.C., 961 F. Supp. 2d 169, 174 (D.D.C. 2013).

Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident. He purports to sue a U.S. Probation Officer, former First Lady Michelle Obama, and three "John Doe[s]." Compl. Caption. The rambling complaint contains no factual allegations against the named probation officer; plaintiff's allegation that Mrs. Obama, along with former President Barack Obama, "effected [his] false imprisonment," Compl. $\mathbf{9}28$ , has no basis in law or fact; and no other defendants are identified in the caption of the complaint. See LCvR 11.1 (requiring the "first filing" to include "in the caption the name and full residence address or official address of each party"). Consequently, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: May 30, 2017