Brown v. McCarthy

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 4, 2009
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2009-2074
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV - 4 2009 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts ) Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 09 2074 Associate County Attorney ) Brennan C. McCarthy, ) ) Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and

application for leave to proceed informa 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 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pro se litigants 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

complaints to contain "(1) 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); Oralsky 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. Califano, 75

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

.3 \~ Plaintiff, a resident of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, sues an associate county attorney

presumably for Prince George's County, Maryland. Similar to plaintiffs previous eight

complaints dismissed this year under Rule 8, this complaint consists of one page and a stack of

unexplained attachments. The allegations are incomprehensible and, thus, fail to provide any

notice of a claim and the basis of federal court jurisdiction. Plaintiff is advised that his

persistence in filing such actions will result in this Court restricting his ability to proceed in

forma pauperis. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: Octobe.l b, 2009