Brown v. Mental Health and Mental Hygiene
This text of Brown v. Mental Health and Mental Hygiene (Brown v. Mental Health and Mental Hygiene) 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
FILED OCT 21 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk, U.S. District and FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Bankruptcy Courts
Jerome Julius Brown, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 09 1988 ) Mental Health & Mental Hygiene et aI., ) ) Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the
complaint.
Plaintiff, who gives a Maryland address and telephone number, has filed a complaint
against a defendants with Maryland addresses. The complaint appears to consist of only one
page and does not allege any facts indicating a cause of action or relief sought from the named
defendants. The complaint is accompanied by more than forty pages of other papers having no
obvious relationship to the document identified as the complaint. The complaint contains
phrases that are decipherable, such as"Title 18 U. S.C. section 1001," "baby boy brown certificate
of death," and of a "HUD deed of trust," but as a whole, the complaint is incoherent and
nonsensical.
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 Rule 8(a). It would not be possible for
any defendant to discern an allegation of injury or wrongdoing. Moreover, the Court cannot
discern a basis for its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A separate order accompanies this memoran
United(States District Judge
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Brown v. Mental Health and Mental Hygiene, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-mental-health-and-mental-hygiene-dcd-2009.