Butler v. California Health and Human Services

District of Columbia

Butler v. California Health and Human Services

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedMay 17, 2019

DocketCivil Action No. 2019-0111

StatusPublished

This text of Butler v. California Health and Human Services (Butler v. California Health and Human Services) 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

Butler v. California Health and Human Services, (D.D.C. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED

MAY 17 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts CHRISTOPHER DESHAWN BUTLER, Plaintiff, V. : Civil Action No. 19-0111 (UNA)

CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ef al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the

complaint without prejudice.

The Court notes that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, even 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 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 claims being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies.

Brown y. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). It appears that the plaintiff's claims pertain to the custody of his daughter. The complaint is otherwise unintelligible. Missing from the complaint are statements of the grounds upon which this court’s jurisdiction depends and a cognizable claim showing the plaintiff's entitlement to relief. As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the standard set forth in Rule 8(a), and therefore,

it must be dismissed, An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

ty y j ‘ DATE: May ie, 2019 (ws Klar Kobly

United States District Judge

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

FILED

MAY 17 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts CHRISTOPHER DESHAWN BUTLER, Plaintiff, V. : Civil Action No. 19-0111 (UNA)

CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ef al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the

complaint without prejudice.

The Court notes that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, even 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 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 claims being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies.

Brown y. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). It appears that the plaintiff's claims pertain to the custody of his daughter. The complaint is otherwise unintelligible. Missing from the complaint are statements of the grounds upon which this court’s jurisdiction depends and a cognizable claim showing the plaintiff's entitlement to relief. As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the standard set forth in Rule 8(a), and therefore,

it must be dismissed, An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

ty y j ‘ DATE: May ie, 2019 (ws Klar Kobly

United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Butler v. California Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-california-health-and-human-services-dcd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack