Finch v. Gibson

Opinion

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SEP -1 2011 Clerk, U S Dj trl Courts fo'r ihe tlsf~c&t BfanCkruptcy ) o olumbla Shawn Martin Finch, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. {1 ) Kim R. Gibson, ) ) Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of the plaintifTs 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.

Pro se litigants 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

complaints 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Oralsky v. CIA, 355

F.3d 661, 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).

N 3 The plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident suing an individual in Johnstown,

Pennsylvania. In the cryptic complaint captioned "Action Involves Discrimination," the plaintiff

claims violations of the first, eighth and ninth amendments to the Constitution and the "Civil

Rights Act of 1964 Title III ... [d]ue to dismissal of cases and denying a fair hearing."

Complaint at 1. The plaintiff has stated no supporting facts. He therefore has failed to provide

the defendant with any notice of a claim. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 555 U.S. 544, 555

(2007) (a plaintiff's "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the

speculative level .... ") (citations omitted). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

Date: 4U 3,2011