Haugh v. McCorkle

District of Columbia

Haugh v. McCorkle

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedSeptember 15, 2011

DocketCivil Action No. 2011-1669

StatusPublished

This text of Haugh v. McCorkle (Haugh v. McCorkle) 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

Haugh v. McCorkle, (D.D.C. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED

SEP 1 5 2011 F§LT¥§ES§§£§'C’§S§§‘€§L‘§§§F§§ w»~<, u.s. 5a Courts for the Diszric; of g’;;'d‘r;]tbia SHIRLEY HAUGH, ) Plaintiff, § v. § Civil Action No. ‘(4 WILLIAM McCORKLE, et al., § 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 plaintiff s 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. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule S(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. S(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. 1977). Plaintiff purports to bring a civil action against the federal government "for the death of

[her] son [who] was shot on the streets of Washington D.C." Compl. at l. She neither identifies the named defendants nor supplies addresses for them. Wholly absent from the pleading are any factual allegations to support her claim, and without additional information the defendants do not have fair notice of the claims asserted or the relief demanded. The complaint fails to comply with Rule S(a) and it will be dismissed.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

449 `edSae /i rid u e DATE_ 7//]/)‘

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

FILED

SEP 1 5 2011 F§LT¥§ES§§£§'C’§S§§‘€§L‘§§§F§§ w»~<, u.s. 5a Courts for the Diszric; of g’;;'d‘r;]tbia SHIRLEY HAUGH, ) Plaintiff, § v. § Civil Action No. ‘(4 WILLIAM McCORKLE, et al., § 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 plaintiff s 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. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule S(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. S(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. 1977). Plaintiff purports to bring a civil action against the federal government "for the death of

[her] son [who] was shot on the streets of Washington D.C." Compl. at l. She neither identifies the named defendants nor supplies addresses for them. Wholly absent from the pleading are any factual allegations to support her claim, and without additional information the defendants do not have fair notice of the claims asserted or the relief demanded. The complaint fails to comply with Rule S(a) and it will be dismissed.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

449 `edSae /i rid u e DATE_ 7//]/)‘

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Haugh v. McCorkle, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haugh-v-mccorkle-dcd-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack