Colbert v. U.S. Marshal's Service

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided November 29, 2010·No. Civil Action No. 2010-2033·Published

Opinion

FILED

NUV UNITED sTATEs DISTRICT CoURT 2 9 2010 FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLvMBIA C‘€rk, u.s. D,~st,

Bankrup¢¢y Co"$§nd

ANTONIO COLBERT, ) )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) civil A@uon No. 10 - 9Ȣ> 3 ?>

U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, ) )

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court upon consideration of plaintiff’ s application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.

Plaintiff accuses defendant of unspecified misconduct and, and he asserts that the "problems persist and gotten very much out of hand!" Compl. at 2. Although plaintiff does not demand "money or compensation," he "would like for this matter to be looked into, and properly adressed [sic] to your security staff at the courthouse." Id.

The Court has reviewed plaintiff s 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 Haz'nes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 5 l9, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tz`sch, 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. 1977). Plaintiffs complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon

which the Court’s jurisdiction depends or a claim that plaintiff is entitled to the relief he seeks.

F or these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed for its failure to comply with Rule 8(a). An

Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

M%/

United Statés District Judge

DATE:

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

Colbert v. U.S. Marshal's Service, (D.D.C. 2010).

Colbert v. U.S. Marshal's Service (Colbert v. U.S. Marshal's Service) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arciniega v. Freeman
404 U.S. 4 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Jarrell v. Tisch
656 F. Supp. 237 (District of Columbia, 1987)
Brown v. Califano
75 F.R.D. 497 (District of Columbia, 1977)