Colbert v. Hamilton County Department of Health and Human Services

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedNovember 28, 2011
DocketCivil Action No. 2011-2103
StatusPublished

This text of Colbert v. Hamilton County Department of Health and Human Services (Colbert v. Hamilton County Department of 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
Colbert v. Hamilton County Department of Health and Human Services, (D.D.C. 2011).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA I L E D

) NOV 2 8 2011 Antonio Colbert’ ) C|Zltai~:r;kl:.$.t£»isérict and u ) p cy ourts Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) Hamilton County Dep’t of ) Health and Human Services, ) ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINlON

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’ s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis The application will be granted and the case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(ii). Under that statute, the Court is required to dismiss a case "at any time" it determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Plaintiff lists his address as a Post Office Box in the District of Columbia. He sues the Hamilton County Department of Health and Human Services in Cincinnati, Ohio, for 310 million "in restitution for their fraudulance [sic]." In his one-paragraph complaint, plaintiff alleges only that defendant "refused to provide adquite [sic] assistance, neglecting my rights or necessity as a taxpayer!"

Plaintiff` s cryptic allegation fails to state a cognizable claim over which this Court may exercise jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) or 28 U.S.C. § 1332

(diversity actions). See Bell Allantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (A plaintiffs

"[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .")

(citations omitted); Aktieselskabet AF 21 . N0v. 2001 v. Fame Jeans, Inc., 525 F.3d 8, 16 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ("[A] complaint needs some information about the circumstances giving rise to the claims."); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ("In alleging fraud . . ., a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud . . . ."). Therefore, the complaint will be

dismissed A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/4.

Un1ted States District Judge

Date: November g 201 l

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

Related

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Colbert v. Hamilton County Department of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colbert-v-hamilton-county-department-of-health-and-dcd-2011.