Dozier-Carter v. Commissioner of Social Security

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJanuary 16, 2009
DocketCivil Action No. 2009-0102
StatusPublished

This text of Dozier-Carter v. Commissioner of Social Security (Dozier-Carter v. Commissioner of Social Security) 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
Dozier-Carter v. Commissioner of Social Security, (D.D.C. 2009).

Opinion

\m

F|LED

JAN 1 5 2009

Nmcv MAvEa wmm~ u.s. msm:cr cgi)izi' CLERK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

Angela Dozier-Carter, ) )

P1aintiff, )

v. § Civil Act1on No.

Commissioner of Social Security et al., ) )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pr0 se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. l987). Rule S(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires complaints to contain "(l) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction . . . ; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought. . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 66l, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 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 and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498

(D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiff sues President George Bush, Justice John Paul Stevens, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue for allegedly "breach[ing] their fudiciary [sic] duty by not awarding the plaintiff a $700,000 demand by judgment of default" apparently against the Social Security Commissioner. The complaint, which is devoid of any information about a pending or dismissed court case, provides no notice of a claim. Moreover, the claim against all of the defendants except perhaps the Social Security Commissioner is frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 3l9, 325 (1989) (complaint based on "fanciful factual allegation[s]" deemed frivolous); Brandon v. District of Columbia Bd. of Parole, 734 F.2d 56, 59 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (complaint lacking "an arguable basis in law and fact" subject to dismissal as frivolous). A

separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

United S at istrict Judge

Date: December, , 2008

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

Related

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)
Dozier-Carter v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dozier-carter-v-commissioner-of-social-security-dcd-2009.