Hines v. H and R Block

District of Columbia

Hines v. H and R Block

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedSeptember 1, 2017

DocketCivil Action No. 2017-1415

StatusPublished

This text of Hines v. H and R Block (Hines v. H and R Block) 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

Hines v. H and R Block, (D.D.C. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DASHON MARTEL HINES, ) )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 17-1415 (UNA)

H AND R BLOCK, ) )

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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.

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 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 claims being asserted such that they can prepare a responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense, and determine whether the

doctrine of resjudicata applies. Brown v. Calz'fano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiffs single claim is that defendant “issued a tax return to the plaintiff in violation of the Revenue Act of186l and/or applicable US tax laws.” Compl. at 3. Plaintiff purports to establish federal questionjurisdiction, see id. at l, without identifying a current statute allegedly violated by defendant. Similarly, plaintiff demands damages of $ l million, see id. at 5, without setting forth a statement of a claim showing his entitlement to such relief. As drafted, the

complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a) and therefore it will be dismissed without prejudice

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE; §lzz\ DF“ 7&¢/&/1 @'M_{`

United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DASHON MARTEL HINES, ) )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 17-1415 (UNA)

H AND R BLOCK, ) )

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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.

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 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 claims being asserted such that they can prepare a responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense, and determine whether the

doctrine of resjudicata applies. Brown v. Calz'fano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiffs single claim is that defendant “issued a tax return to the plaintiff in violation of the Revenue Act of186l and/or applicable US tax laws.” Compl. at 3. Plaintiff purports to establish federal questionjurisdiction, see id. at l, without identifying a current statute allegedly violated by defendant. Similarly, plaintiff demands damages of $ l million, see id. at 5, without setting forth a statement of a claim showing his entitlement to such relief. As drafted, the

complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a) and therefore it will be dismissed without prejudice

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE; §lzz\ DF“ 7&¢/&/1 @'M_{`

United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hines v. H and R Block, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-v-h-and-r-block-dcd-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack