Karas v. Central Intelligence Agency

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJune 26, 2012
DocketCivil Action No. 2012-1048
StatusPublished

This text of Karas v. Central Intelligence Agency (Karas v. Central Intelligence Agency) 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
Karas v. Central Intelligence Agency, (D.D.C. 2012).

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT _]UN 2 6 2012

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA C|erk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy

Courts for the District 01 Co|umbia

PAULA J. KARAS, ) Plaintiff, j v. j Civil Action N0. 4 8 CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, j Defendant. j MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of the plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and her pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.

The plaintiff alleges that defendant violated her constitutional right "to injunctive relief as a documented victim." Compl. at l. In the attached "Affidavit of [F]acts," plaintiff states:

In the year of 2008 the plaintiff and her friend . . . were in the state of Florida vacationing. The plaintiff tried to seek injunctive relief as a well established documented victim through the Florida United States Justice Department. However the plaintiff could not receive injunctive relief through the Florida United States Justice Department. The plaintiff clearly knowing that the defendants had knowledge of the plaintiffs documented complaint case . . . [yet] the plaintiff still has not received injunctive relief as a victim from the defendants. ]a’. at 2.

Rule S(a) of the F ederal 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 defendant 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). As drafted, the plaintiff s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a). lt neither describes the events which have rendered her a "documented victim," nor states the injunctive relief she demands. According, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. An Order consistent with this

Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

;¢2/%,,2 flee §H crc/4

United States District Judge

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

Related

Brown v. Califano
75 F.R.D. 497 (District of Columbia, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Karas v. Central Intelligence Agency, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karas-v-central-intelligence-agency-dcd-2012.