JONES v. PRESIDENT BIDEN, No. 1:2024cv00526 - Document 4 (D.D.C. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 5/6/2024. (znmw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JULIANNE JONES, Plaintiff, v. PRESIDENT BIDEN, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 24-0526 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1). The Court GRANTS the application, and for the reasons discussed below, DISMISSES the complaint and this civil action without prejudice. A pro se litigant’s pleading is held to less stringent standards than would be 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 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). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants 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). Plaintiff alleges she “wrote 2 scientifically engineered books,” and those who read the books advance “from a level 1 . . . to high school comprehension level in days[.]” Compl. at 1. She demands “funding to run a residential program” for children in foster care, id., so that they will not “become adults without a high school diploma,” id. at 2. Plaintiff does not “want them committing crimes, rapes and murders just for basic needs such as a place to stay, food to eat, etc.” Id. She demands an award of $50 million “for bringing this information forward.” Id. As drafted, plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a). The complaint’s factual allegations are far too vague and conclusory to articulate a viable legal claim or to give the named defendant reasonable notice of the claim(s) against him. An Order is issued separately. AMIT P. MEHTA United States District Judge DATE: May 6, 2024
]]>
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.
