Malone v. District Hospital Partners, L.P.

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: August 18, 2016
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2016-1685
• Status: Published

Opinion

¢»/»v.'exwmc~\w.=w.~.,»~¢t» .»~>

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBlA

Joan F.M. Malone, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case: 1:16-cv-O1685 V_ ) Assigned To : Unassigned ) Assign_ Date : 8/18/2016 District Hospital Partners, L.P., d/b/a ) D@Scriptlon`- pro 39 Gen~ ClVll (F D€Ck)) George Washington ) University Hospital et al. ) ) Defendants. ) 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 S(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tz`sch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule S(a) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires complaints to contain "(l) 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. S(a); see Ashcrofz‘ v, Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); €iralsky 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. Calzfano, 75

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

»z¢z»;p;w$’»\+~»a»»¢»,.~¢....».» l ,~ w _,~t~~m~»-¢¢“ wz~»..¢»-~»»..<.\.~_»a,\m a ,»-,.»~»\M,». . a .r. ~ < ~ ~..\ ,… …`-‘._4_\,,,,., f

Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, introduces this lawsuit as "an action of gross medical [negligence]." Compl. at l. The complaint does not include any cogent allegations against the named defendants to provide notice of a claim, nor is the basis of federal court jurisdiction clear. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed without prejudice A separate order

accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: August \X ,2016