Brosten v. Cube Smart Management, LLC

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: March 20, 2014
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2014-0461
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 0

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA C|erk U S Distit courcs' rdr ina ni§iriiii gi

Eric Brosten, Plaintiff,

v. civil A¢ti@n NO_ /§¢ - /

Cube Smart Management LLC,

Defendant.

\)\/\/\J\./L/\/§/\./§/

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the plaintiff s pro se Complaint and application to proceed z'rzforma pauperz's. The Court will grant the informal 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.

Pr0 se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ./arre!l v. Tz'sch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) ofthe 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. S(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Cz`ralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2()04). 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. Browrz v. Calz"fano, 75

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident suing a company based in the District. He "requests [that] this court look into this very serious matter with billions of dollars at stake and the future of mankind." Compl. at l. Plaintiff states that "[a]t first glance it seems like a simple dispute . . .," but the nature of the dispute and the defendant’s involvement is indiscernible from the disjointed statements comprising the complaint. Since the complaint fails to provide any notice of a claim and the basis of federal court jurisdiction, the case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

fsi/ca § M»

Uf§ed States District“J/udge

Date: February ,2014