Cosby v. Social Security Administration

District of Columbia

Cosby v. Social Security Administration

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedFebruary 9, 2012

DocketCivil Action No. 2012-0214

StatusPublished

This text of Cosby v. Social Security Administration (Cosby v. Social Security Administration) 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. Social Security Administration, (D.D.C. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED sTATEs DISTRICT CoURT F I L E D FoR THE ms'rmcT oF CoLIJMBIA

FEB ~ 9 2012 LEONA COSBY» > @‘§,'3§¥;§’.;?zh‘l‘%‘?'§?§i§§?'&‘§,'.‘S,?§?,Ya Plaintiff, § v. § Civil Action No. SOCIAL SECURITY, § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of the plaintiffs 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 the 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 U.S. 5l9, 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 F ederal 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 defendant of the claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine

of resjua'icata applies. Brown v. Calzfarzo, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

In its entirety, the complaint states: l am intitle [sic] to workers compensation. I came back to work and was terrnmeanated [sic]. Then was transferred over to SSI. 50 million. Compl. at 2. What few factual allegations the plaintiff includes in her pleading are far too vague to establish an entitlement to the monetary damages she demands. As drafted, the complaint fails

to comply with Rule 8(a), and it will be dismissed.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

`€

United §tates District Judge

DATE; Z l/‘liD

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

UNITED sTATEs DISTRICT CoURT F I L E D FoR THE ms'rmcT oF CoLIJMBIA

FEB ~ 9 2012 LEONA COSBY» > @‘§,'3§¥;§’.;?zh‘l‘%‘?'§?§i§§?'&‘§,'.‘S,?§?,Ya Plaintiff, § v. § Civil Action No. SOCIAL SECURITY, § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of the plaintiffs 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 the 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 U.S. 5l9, 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 F ederal 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 defendant of the claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine

of resjua'icata applies. Brown v. Calzfarzo, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

In its entirety, the complaint states: l am intitle [sic] to workers compensation. I came back to work and was terrnmeanated [sic]. Then was transferred over to SSI. 50 million. Compl. at 2. What few factual allegations the plaintiff includes in her pleading are far too vague to establish an entitlement to the monetary damages she demands. As drafted, the complaint fails

to comply with Rule 8(a), and it will be dismissed.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

`€

United §tates District Judge

DATE; Z l/‘liD

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cosby v. Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cosby-v-social-security-administration-dcd-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack