Hudson v. Belcher
This text of Hudson v. Belcher (Hudson v. Belcher) 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.
Opinion
PI'LED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 31 2009 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, u.s. District and Bankruptcy Courts Cheryl D. Hudson (Lott), ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 09 1661 Herbert Belcher, ) ) Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the
complaint.
Plaintiff, who lists a Maryland address on the complaint, has filed a complaint against a
defendant with a Maryland address. The very short one-page complaint merely asserts in a
conclusory manner that the plaintiff is a repeated victim of "bank fraud, postal mail fraud,
telecommunications fraud, credit card fraud, [and] bank card fraud," and that the defendant
"continuouls interferes with my business endeavors by attributing to ID fraud." Plaintiffis
"requesting full reimbursement of all associated fees, fines and costs as associated therein, as a
direct result of his fraudulent acts." The complaint alleges no facts stating what actions the
defendant took that caused injury to the plaintiff. The complaint also does not allege facts that
suggest federal jurisdiction.
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. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). In addition, the
complaint must allege facts sufficient to permit the court to determine whether it has jurisdiction
over the case.
As drafted, the Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a). The Court cannot, nor will the
defendant be able to, determine the basis of this Court's jurisdiction, the facts on which the
plaintiff s claims rest, or the relief plaintiff seeks. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the
complaint without prejudice.
A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.
Date:
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Hudson v. Belcher, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-v-belcher-dcd-2009.