WOUBETU v. PEOPLE WHO GO TO SAINT MARY'S CHURCH et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Carl J. Nichols on 07/29/2022. (znmg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PEOPLE WHO WORK AT ST. MARY’S )
CHURCH, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
SAMSON WOUBETU,

Civil Action No. 22-cv-2164 (UNA)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed
in forma pauperis and pro se Complaint. See ECF No. 1 & 2. The Court grants the application
and, for the reasons discussed below, dismisses the Complaint.
A pro se litigant’s pleading is held to less stringent standards than the standard applied to
a formal pleading drafted by lawyer. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro
se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch,
656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules 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). Rule 8 gives fair notice to the
defendant of the claim 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).

1

The Complaint alleges in vague terms that certain defendants “held” plaintiff’s wife, called
plaintiff “Satan,” and “oppose[] God & the Saints.” Compl. at 1, ECF No. 1 (page number
designated by CM/ECF). Further, it is alleged that Barack Obama “refused” to stop defendants
“from harassing and attacking” plaintiff. Id. Missing, however, is a statement establishing a basis
for this Court’s jurisdiction and a demand for relief. Furthermore, there are so few factual
allegations that defendants cannot reasonably be expected to identify the claim or claims brought
against them. As drafted, the Complaint fails to comply with the minimum pleading standard set
forth in Rule 8(a) and, therefore, must be dismissed. A separate order will issue.

DATE: July 29, 2022

/s/
CARL J. NICHOLS
United States District Judge

2