Iwanicki v. State of Pennsylvania

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedDecember 12, 2012
DocketCivil Action No. 2012-1985
StatusPublished

This text of Iwanicki v. State of Pennsylvania (Iwanicki v. State of Pennsylvania) 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
Iwanicki v. State of Pennsylvania, (D.D.C. 2012).

Opinion

FILED

uEc1 22m2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FoR THE DISTRICT oF coLUMmA °'e"‘- U'S- D’S*_'*‘=* 31 Ba"k'vr»v=v Courts for the D»strict 01 Columbia

CHRISTOPHER IWANICKI, ) Plaintiff, § v. § Civil Action No. STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, § Defendant. g 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 plaintiffs 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. Kerrzer, 404 U.S. 5l9, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tz`sch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. l987). 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. l977).

The complaint is so incoherently written that the Court cannot discern a viable claim within this court’s subject matter jurisdiction or a basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over the named defendant or a clear statement showing plaintiff entitlement to relief. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint. An Order consistent with this l\/Iemorandum Opinion is

issued separately.

'1?9<¢--»-»

United§'ate)s District judge DATE:

¢L{'z [12__”

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

Related

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)
Iwanicki v. State of Pennsylvania, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iwanicki-v-state-of-pennsylvania-dcd-2012.