Long v. Gonzalez

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 3, 2010
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2010-1885
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FILED NOV - 3 26m ) Clerk, U.S. District &Bankruptcy ) Courts for the District of Columbia Karen F. Long, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 10 1885 Raul M. Gozalez, ) ) Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis

application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading

requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is frivolous.

Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch,

656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires

complaints to contain "( 1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction

[and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937,1950 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355

F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair

notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate

defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75

F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977).

/' ;(1 Plaintiff, a resident of Ox on Hill, Maryland, sues "Raul M. Gozalez, Secretary of DOJ"

but for what conduct is unknown. The complaint, consisting of incoherent scribble, fails to

provide any notice of a claim and is simply frivolous.] A separate Order of dismissal

accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

] This complaint is one of four such submissions received by the Clerk's Office on the same day. Each complaint names a different defendant. Plaintiff, who just this year has had nine cases dismissed under similar circumstances, is warned that her persistence in filing frivolous lawsuits may result in the Court imposing restrictions on her ability to file cases in this Court.