Cosby v. Dc Housing Authority

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedSeptember 26, 2011
DocketCivil Action No. 2011-1729
StatusPublished

This text of Cosby v. Dc Housing Authority (Cosby v. Dc Housing Authority) 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
Cosby v. Dc Housing Authority, (D.D.C. 2011).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F 1 L E D FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SEP 2 6 2011 LE@NA M_ C@SBY, ) Cc¢;)i‘irrg iifa Plaintiff, § v_ § Civil Acti0n No. l D.C. HOUSING AUTHORITY, § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

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. 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. S(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. Calz:fano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). lt appears that there is a dispute between plaintiff and her landlord regarding the payment

of rent. The complaint articulates neither a cognizable claim, a demand for any particular relief, nor a basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice because it fails to comply with the minimal pleading requirements set forth in Rule S(a).

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

14 d/i/ 1ted St

/Di»stir` Judge /, M¢¢¢j

U

DATE; 7”“/(/“ //

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

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Jarrell v. Tisch
656 F. Supp. 237 (District of Columbia, 1987)
Brown v. Califano
75 F.R.D. 497 (District of Columbia, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cosby v. Dc Housing Authority, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cosby-v-dc-housing-authority-dcd-2011.