
    Christopher Deshawn BUTLER, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT, et al., Defendants.
    Civil Action No. 13-1684
    United States District Court, District of Columbia.
    Filed October 28, 2013
    Christopher Deshawn Butler, Patton, CA, pro se.
   MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ketanji Brown Jackson, United States District Judge

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff, who describes himself as a “natural born sovereign man,” Compl. at 2 (page numbers designated by the Court), alleges that the defendants are forcing him “to do business without a contract agreement.” Id. at 1. He also invokes “federal copyright[] law” to challenge the use of “the name of Christopher DeShawn Butler in all capital letters.” Id. at 3.

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that 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, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (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(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). 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).

As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a), and it will be dismissed. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.  