Irvin v. Sharief

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJune 26, 2017
DocketCivil Action No. 2017-1128
StatusPublished

This text of Irvin v. Sharief (Irvin v. Sharief) 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
Irvin v. Sharief, (D.D.C. 2017).

Opinion

FIL§E§D

UNITED sTATES DISTRICT CoURT JUN 2 6»:2017

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. DiStIlCt & Bankruptcy

Courts for the D|strict of Columbia MATTHEW IRVIN,

Plaintiff, v. : Civil Action No. 17-1128 (UNA) BARBARA SHARIEF, 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 notes 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 must comply with the F ederal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tz`sch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. l987j. 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, 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).

Based on the Court’s review of the complaint, its allegations are so vague and confusing that no defendant can be expected to prepare a substantive response to it. Plaintiff does not articulate a cognizable legal claim, and his complaint otherwise fails to meet the standard set forth in Rule'8(a). The Court, therefore, will dismiss the complaint and this civil action without

prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandurn Opinion is issued separately.

/ DATE; fw ”Z§,Q°/;L /cww Q

United S}e{§zs District Judge

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

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
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)
Irvin v. Sharief, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irvin-v-sharief-dcd-2017.