POBLETE v. HUILO

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION re: Plaintiff's 1 Complaint. See the attached Memorandum Opinion for further details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 01/30/2017. (lcapm1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CHUNG HUILO,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_________________________________________ )
LUIS IVAN POBLETE,

Case No. 17-mc-00158 (APM)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on review of Plaintiff Luis Ivan Poblete’s “Pleading in
Chancery Equity.” Plaintiff proceeds pro se. The court dismisses the pleading sua sponte for
failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain “a short
and plain statement” of the basis for the court’s jurisdiction; “a short and plain statement” of the
pleader’s claim, showing she or he is entitled to relief; and a demand for relief. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a). The purpose of this minimum pleading standard is to give fair notice to the defendant of
the claims being asserted, such that the defendant can prepare a responsive answer and adequate
defense, as well as determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Butler v. Cal. St.
Disbursement Unit, 990 F. Supp. 2d 8, 9 (D.D.C. 2013). Pleadings filed by pro se litigants are
held to less stringent standards than those filed by lawyers, but all litigants must comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Moore v. Agency for Int’l Dev., 994 F.2d 874, 876 (D.C.
Cir. 1993).

The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and, in a word, it is unintelligible. The
Complaint is titled as being filed in both the federal district court and the federal bankruptcy court
for the District of Columbia. At no point does Plaintiff identify Defendant Chung Huilo or make
any allegations pertaining to Defendant. Plaintiff states only that he “ha[s] a CONFLICT with the
rules of law” and seeks “equitable relief” in the form of “the extinguishment and the full accounting
of the ledger record.” See Compl., ECF No. 1, at 7. These statements neither constitute a “short
and plain statement” of the court’s jurisdiction and material facts, nor convey the nature of the
dispute. Therefore, as drafted, the Complaint fails to meet the standard set forth in Rule 8(a) and
must be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

_____________________________
Amit P. Mehta
United States District Judge

Date: January 30, 2017

2