Girma v. US Department of Education

District of Columbia

Girma v. US Department of Education

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJune 29, 2010

DocketCivil Action No. 2010-1091

StatusPublished

This text of Girma v. US Department of Education (Girma v. US Department of Education) 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

Girma v. US Department of Education, (D.D.C. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ml

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FILED

.|UN 2 9 2010 KEDIST GIRMA, ) c\erk, u.s. D\srr\cf and ) Bankruptcy Courts Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) . UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ) 1 1 OF EDUCATION, ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff’ s 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 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 (l972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the F ederal 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. 8(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. Calzfano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977).

Because of an apparent dispute between plaintiff and Howard University with respect to her medical and academic records, plaintiff demands that defendant "delete all student loans [she] owe[s] to Howard University - simply because there now seems to be a confusion as to the time [she] attended Howard University." Compl. at l. Absent from the complaint is any allegation pertaining to the actions or omissions of the named defendant. lt does not appear that the complaint, as drafted, sets forth a short and plain statement showing plaintiff s entitlement to

the relief she seeks. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

LL\be£/l\/

Unifed States District Judge

f DATE: .\/,¢,,M,_/ g,\/),¢»~¢D

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

ml

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FILED

.|UN 2 9 2010 KEDIST GIRMA, ) c\erk, u.s. D\srr\cf and ) Bankruptcy Courts Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) . UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ) 1 1 OF EDUCATION, ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff’ s 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 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 (l972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the F ederal 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. 8(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. Calzfano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977).

Because of an apparent dispute between plaintiff and Howard University with respect to her medical and academic records, plaintiff demands that defendant "delete all student loans [she] owe[s] to Howard University - simply because there now seems to be a confusion as to the time [she] attended Howard University." Compl. at l. Absent from the complaint is any allegation pertaining to the actions or omissions of the named defendant. lt does not appear that the complaint, as drafted, sets forth a short and plain statement showing plaintiff s entitlement to

the relief she seeks. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

LL\be£/l\/

Unifed States District Judge

f DATE: .\/,¢,,M,_/ g,\/),¢»~¢D

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Girma v. US Department of Education, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/girma-v-us-department-of-education-dcd-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack