Ciriello v. Executive Office of the President

District of Columbia

Ciriello v. Executive Office of the President

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedNovember 17, 2014

DocketCivil Action No. 2014-1932

StatusPublished

This text of Ciriello v. Executive Office of the President (Ciriello v. Executive Office of the President) 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

Ciriello v. Executive Office of the President, (D.D.C. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

FILEIZ}

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV 1 7 201‘: FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts Mark S. Ciriello, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case: 1:14-cv-O1932 V_ ) ASSIgned To : Unassigned ) Assign. Date : 11/17/2014 Executive Ofﬁce of the President, ) Descr'ptlon: Pro se Gen- ClV” ) Defendant. ) ) 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 (DC. 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).

Plaintiff is a resident of Waterbury, Connecticut, who has named the Executive Ofﬁce of the President as the sole defendant to this action. See Compl. Caption. The complaint consists of a narrative about events that have nothing to do with the named defendant. Plaintiff indicates that he is ﬁling here because a judge in the District of Connecticut has “banned” him from ﬁling claims in that court absent his ﬁling of “certain paper work[.]” Compl. at l. The instant complaint and inexplicable attachments fail to provide any notice of a claim. A separate Order

of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

United tates District Judge

{R Date: November ,2014

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

FILEIZ}

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV 1 7 201‘: FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts Mark S. Ciriello, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case: 1:14-cv-O1932 V_ ) ASSIgned To : Unassigned ) Assign. Date : 11/17/2014 Executive Ofﬁce of the President, ) Descr'ptlon: Pro se Gen- ClV” ) Defendant. ) ) 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 (DC. 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).

Plaintiff is a resident of Waterbury, Connecticut, who has named the Executive Ofﬁce of the President as the sole defendant to this action. See Compl. Caption. The complaint consists of a narrative about events that have nothing to do with the named defendant. Plaintiff indicates that he is ﬁling here because a judge in the District of Connecticut has “banned” him from ﬁling claims in that court absent his ﬁling of “certain paper work[.]” Compl. at l. The instant complaint and inexplicable attachments fail to provide any notice of a claim. A separate Order

of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

United tates District Judge

{R Date: November ,2014

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ciriello v. Executive Office of the President, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ciriello-v-executive-office-of-the-president-dcd-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack