Grimes v. Sizzlenger

District of Columbia

Grimes v. Sizzlenger

264 F. Supp. 3d 87

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedAugust 29, 2017

DocketCivil Action No. 2017-1561

StatusPublished

This text of 264 F. Supp. 3d 87 (Grimes v. Sizzlenger) 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

Grimes v. Sizzlenger, 264 F. Supp. 3d 87 (D.D.C. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Amy Berman Jackson, United States District Judge

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs- application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant, the application, and dismiss the complaint.

*88 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint contain “ ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests[.]’ ” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). Further, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). Although a pro se complaint is “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), it too, “must plead ‘factual matter’ that permits the court to infer ‘more than the mere possibility of misconduct,’ ” Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 681-82 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. 1937).

It appears that plaintiff brings a civil rights action against his former defense counsel. Although plaintiff makes concluso-ry statements as to defendants’ alleged violations of rights protected under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, there are no factual allegations in the complaint describing the circumstances under which plaintiffs claims arose. As drafted, the complaint fails to state a plausible claim, and the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Amy Berman Jackson, United States District Judge

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs- application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant, the application, and dismiss the complaint.

*88 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint contain “ ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests[.]’ ” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). Further, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). Although a pro se complaint is “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), it too, “must plead ‘factual matter’ that permits the court to infer ‘more than the mere possibility of misconduct,’ ” Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 681-82 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. 1937).

It appears that plaintiff brings a civil rights action against his former defense counsel. Although plaintiff makes concluso-ry statements as to defendants’ alleged violations of rights protected under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, there are no factual allegations in the complaint describing the circumstances under which plaintiffs claims arose. As drafted, the complaint fails to state a plausible claim, and the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 F. Supp. 3d 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grimes-v-sizzlenger-dcd-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack