Banks v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

District of Columbia

Banks v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided January 10, 2012·No. Civil Action No. 2012-0027·Published

Opinion

¢¢“~""

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FoR THE 1)1sTR1cT oF CoLUMBIA JAN 1 0 2012 C|ork, U.S. Dlstrict & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of columbia RAYNOLDO BANKS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ' ) v, ) Civil Action No. . ‘ t

) 12 m FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

The Court has reviewed the 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 (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. S(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendant 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. Calij"c`zno, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977).

lt appears that the plaintiff has been prescribed unspecified medication and was forced to take the medication while incarcerated at a federal correctional institution. What few factual allegations the plaintiff includes in his pleading are far too vague to establish his entitlement to the monetary damages he demands. As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a), and it will be dismissed.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

46/ .-` t = ' d d

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

¢¢“~""

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FoR THE 1)1sTR1cT oF CoLUMBIA JAN 1 0 2012 C|ork, U.S. Dlstrict & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of columbia RAYNOLDO BANKS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ' ) v, ) Civil Action No. . ‘ t

) 12 m FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

The Court has reviewed the 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 (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. S(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendant 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. Calij"c`zno, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977).

lt appears that the plaintiff has been prescribed unspecified medication and was forced to take the medication while incarcerated at a federal correctional institution. What few factual allegations the plaintiff includes in his pleading are far too vague to establish his entitlement to the monetary damages he demands. As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a), and it will be dismissed.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

46/ .-` t = ' d d

Banks v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, (D.D.C. 2012).

Pincite

Banks v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (Banks v. Federal Bureau of Prisons) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related