Hickman v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedMay 14, 2010
DocketCivil Action No. 2010-0791
StatusPublished

This text of Hickman v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors (Hickman v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors) 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
Hickman v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors, (D.D.C. 2010).

Opinion

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MAY 1 4 2010 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankru tc Courts for the District of COIU~bYa ) Derian Douglas Hickman, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 10 0791 Federal Reserve Board of Governors et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs 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) ofthe 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). Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, sues the Federal Reserve. In the one-paragraph

complaint, plaintiff alleges only that the defendants are "withholding [his] employment and bank

ownership information[,] causing confusion to voters Governor of a state and employment as

Federal Reserve Banking Board of Governors." He seeks an unspecified "amount due and

documents" that he does not identify. Because the complaint fails to provide any notice of a

claim, it will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

~'!~ j !/~/~ United States District Judge Date: May -ll, 2010

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

Related

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Ciralsky v. Central Intelligence Agency
355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Circuit, 2004)
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)
Hickman v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hickman-v-federal-reserve-board-of-governors-dcd-2010.