Dewitt v. District of Columbia
This text of Dewitt v. District of Columbia (Dewitt v. District of Columbia) 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.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
) CHRISTOPHER DEWITT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-02738 (UNA) ) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and application for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s IFP
application and, for the reasons explained herein, it will dismiss this matter without prejudice.
Plaintiff sues the District of Columbia, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department’s 7th
Precinct, and D.C. Police Commander John Branch. He purports to bring this case pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and broadly seeks damages for “inhumane treatment and aggravated circumstances
while in custody of [the] 7th precinct.” The remainder of the complaint is left largely blank, with
no facts, context, or details necessary to state, or even so much as infer, a legal claim.
Pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F.
Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a complaint to
contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction [and] . . . (2) a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). The Rule 8 standard ensures that
defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive
answer and an adequate defense. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Here, as presented, neither the Court nor Defendants can reasonably be expected to identify Plaintiff’s
claims, and the allegations fall well short of stating a plausible claim.
For these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies
this memorandum opinion.
Date: November 27, 2023 /s/_________________________ ANA C. REYES United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Dewitt v. District of Columbia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dewitt-v-district-of-columbia-dcd-2023.