Brosten v. Library of Congress
This text of Brosten v. Library of Congress (Brosten v. Library of Congress) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
§§,&§, S§str§et a erisa res sr
Eric Brosten, ) Plaintiff, § v. § Civil Action No. - §
Library of Congress, § Defendant. §
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the plaintiffs pro se Complaint and application 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. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). 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. 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. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair
l 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`fano, 75
F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).
Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident suing the Library of Congress for allegedly limiting his access presumably to the building. See Compl. at 2. He seeks $50 million in damages and equitable relief. Ia’. at 3. The complaint begins with incoherent statements and accusations of a "criminal conspercy [sic]" between the Library of Congress police force and "Hillary Clinton." Ia’. at l. Plaintiff then mentions "unlawful discriminatory practice" but does not provide any discernible facts supporting a basis for federal court jurisdiction. Hence, this
case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/C/ rios § where
United States District Judge
Date: February‘~~'Q , 2014
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Brosten v. Library of Congress, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brosten-v-library-of-congress-dcd-2014.