Colbert v. McCartny

District of Columbia

Colbert v. McCartny

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedSeptember 24, 2010

DocketCivil Action No. 2010-1626

StatusPublished

This text of Colbert v. McCartny (Colbert v. McCartny) 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. McCartny, (D.D.C. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

IJNITED sTATEs DISTRICT coURT E D FoR THE DISTRICT oF C0LIJMBIA SEP 2 4 2010

C|¢rk. U.S. oiscrict and

ANroNio COLBERT, sankruptcy courts

)

) Plaintiff, ) )

v. § civil A¢cion No. [C\) __ IUDGE MlCHAEL J. McCARTNY, ) Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

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 draned by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 5l9, 520 (l972). 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. l987). 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. Calzfano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977).

Plaintiff sues Judge McCamy because he "like many other harassed [plaintiff] and discriminated against [him], using and abusing" the authority of his office. Compl. at 2. He alleges that the defendant has accepted a bribe and he accuses the defendant of "perverting justice with sick rebellious ways!" Id. Nowhere in the complaint does plaintiff include a short and plain statement of a claim showing his entitlement to relief or a basis for the court’s jurisdiction. For these reasons, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a), and, therefore, it will be dismissed.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

United States District Judge

DATE; B/'/ >/o/o

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

IJNITED sTATEs DISTRICT coURT E D FoR THE DISTRICT oF C0LIJMBIA SEP 2 4 2010

C|¢rk. U.S. oiscrict and

ANroNio COLBERT, sankruptcy courts

)

) Plaintiff, ) )

v. § civil A¢cion No. [C\) __ IUDGE MlCHAEL J. McCARTNY, ) Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

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 draned by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 5l9, 520 (l972). 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. l987). 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. Calzfano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977).

Plaintiff sues Judge McCamy because he "like many other harassed [plaintiff] and discriminated against [him], using and abusing" the authority of his office. Compl. at 2. He alleges that the defendant has accepted a bribe and he accuses the defendant of "perverting justice with sick rebellious ways!" Id. Nowhere in the complaint does plaintiff include a short and plain statement of a claim showing his entitlement to relief or a basis for the court’s jurisdiction. For these reasons, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a), and, therefore, it will be dismissed.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

United States District Judge

DATE; B/'/ >/o/o

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Colbert v. McCartny, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colbert-v-mccartny-dcd-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack