Bulris v. United States of America

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJune 14, 2013
DocketCivil Action No. 2013-0892
StatusPublished

This text of Bulris v. United States of America (Bulris v. United States of America) 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.

Bluebook
Bulris v. United States of America, (D.D.C. 2013).

Opinion

\\~\

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FILEn

Donna Bulris, ) 1 4 2013 ) C'el`k, U_ s . ‘ Piainrirf, ) Bankrup`¢?,i$ct;'¢iir;nd ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) United States of America el al., ) ) 15 '

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs 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 S(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 "(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 Ashcroji 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. Calzfano, 75

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

Plaintiff lists her address as a women’s shelter in the District of Columbia. She purports to sue the United States and the New York State Police apparently for “manslaughter . . . kidnapping or child stealing, [theft,] fraud, malpractice . . . [and] discrimination." Compl. at l. The prolix "Complaint" consists of disjointed statements that fail to provide any notice of a claim and a basis for federal court jurisdiction. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

w e/é

United S€ates District Judge

&t~\~ Date: June , 2013

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Ciralsky v. Central Intelligence Agency
355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Circuit, 2004)
Jarrell v. Tisch
656 F. Supp. 237 (District of Columbia, 1987)
Brown v. Califano
75 F.R.D. 497 (District of Columbia, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bulris v. United States of America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bulris-v-united-states-of-america-dcd-2013.