Buchanan v. 132nd District Court of Texas

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 17, 2011
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2011-0398
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FE3 17 2011 Clerk, U S Dis . ) Courts for ihe D~~f/ &t Bankruptcy Ie of COlumbia Timothy W. Buchanan, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) 132 nd District Court of Texas et at., ) ) Defendants. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

application for leave 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 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); Ciralsky 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 Texas prisoner in Amarillo, sues a Texas state court there and four individuals

identified as a Judge, "D.A.," Clerk and Foreman. CompI. Caption. He seeks to "correct

indictments proir [sic] to trial, or $60 million dollars and I'll stay here." CompI. at 1. The

complaint fails to establish the basis of federal court jurisdiction and plaintiff s entitlement to

relief.! It therefore will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum

Opinion.

·iL Qek)~-~ United States Distri t Judge Date: February J[) ,2011

! To the extent that plaintiff is seeking to correct the state court's docket, his recourse lies, if at all, in that court.