FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR - 9 2010
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and
Bankruptcy Courts
Surf Moore, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 1(; (j;j8?
)
U.S. Justice Dep't et aI., )
)
Defendants. )
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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (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).
Plaintiff, a resident of Jackson, Mississippi, sues the Department of Justice, the States of
Mississippi and California and an individual, Charles Moore, Jr., for civil damages authorized by
18 U.S.C. § 2520, which states:
Except as provided in section 2511 (2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or
electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation
of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the
United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate.
18 U.S.C. § 2520(a). Demanding $100 million, plaintiff alleges only that "the Defendant
intentional [sic] intruded on plaintiff seclusion and is [illegible] for relief for offensive &
objectionable, and tortious intrusion of Privacy Act 1871." Compi. at 1. The statute precludes
plaintiffs recovery of damages from the United States and plaintiff has not stated sufficient facts
to provide adequate notice of a claim against the remaining defendants. A separate order of
dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: February ~, 2010
2