John Kennedy v. New Jersey Court System

• Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Decided: October 3, 2025
• Docket: 25-5183
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5183 September Term, 2025 1:25-cv-01220-APM Filed On: October 3, 2025 John F. Kennedy, et al.,

Appellants

v.

New Jersey Court System, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Millett, Pillard, and Garcia, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by appellants. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s May 5, 2025 order be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that appellants’ complaint did not set forth “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” or “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), which is required in order to “give the defendants fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,” Jones v. Kirchner, 835 F.3d 74, 79 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5183 September Term, 2025

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk

BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Page 2