SWINT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al, No. 1:2023cv03881 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 01/23/2024. (zcb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
SWINT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ROBERT JAMES SWINT, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 23-03881 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, and application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint. 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). Still, 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). It “does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer, mount an adequate defense, and determine whether Dockets.Justia.com the doctrine of res judicata applies. See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). The standard also assists the court in determining whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter. Plaintiff’s disjointed pleading comprised mostly of illegible scribbles “patently fail[s]” Rule 8’s standard. Jiggetts v. District of Columbia, 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. District of Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017). Consequently, this case will be dismissed by separate order. _________/s/______________ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge Date: January 23, 2024 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
