UNITED sTATEs Dlsrt<lcr CoURT F ]_' L E D
FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBIA

) FEB - 9 2012
ci ~ -
/§:§:lld/>]~Sy.arlzlr\ilt:>t§t;ned Bey a.k.a. § @<,3,'§ li;;°'zh‘§'?§{;?l§ §?'é'§,lll’.§§la
Plaintiff, §
v. § Civil Action No.  0 
Cube Smart, formerly known as, U-Store-II,§
Defendant. §
)
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 S(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. jarrell v. Tz`sch,
656 F. Supp. 23 7, 239 (D.D.C. l987). Rule S(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
complaints to contain "(l) 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. Calz'j"ano, 75

F.R.o. 497, 498 (D.o.c. 1977).

Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident suing a District of Columbia business. See
Case Caption. The complaint consists of rambling statements that fail to provide any notice of a

claim or the basis of federal court jurisdiction. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.   g 

limited Statds District Judge
Date: February , 2012

