Ciriello v. Executive Office of the President

District of Columbia

Ciriello v. Executive Office of the President

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJanuary 15, 2015

DocketCivil Action No. 2015-0065

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. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARK S. CIRIELLO, )

Plaintiff,

Case: 1:15—cv-00065 Assigned To : Unassigned Assign. Date : 1/15/2015 Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil

V.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and

his pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed

as frivolous.

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind 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 US. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, 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 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).

The so-called complaint merely refers to its attachments — principally copies of letters addressed to various federal government entities — and recounts plaintiff’s lack of success in ﬁling lawsuits against the State of Connecticut. The pleading neither alleges facts nor articulates a cognizable legal claim. As drafted, the complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a), and it therefore will be dismissed. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued

separately.

DATE: W I) 2” 5" I United States District Ju ge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARK S. CIRIELLO, )

Plaintiff,

Case: 1:15—cv-00065 Assigned To : Unassigned Assign. Date : 1/15/2015 Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil

V.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and

his pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed

as frivolous.

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind 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 US. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, 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 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).

The so-called complaint merely refers to its attachments — principally copies of letters addressed to various federal government entities — and recounts plaintiff’s lack of success in ﬁling lawsuits against the State of Connecticut. The pleading neither alleges facts nor articulates a cognizable legal claim. As drafted, the complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a), and it therefore will be dismissed. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued

separately.

DATE: W I) 2” 5" I United States District Ju ge

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-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack