Marron v. City of Chesapeake Corporate Entity

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided April 10, 2013·No. Civil Action No. 2013-0470·Published

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 0 2013

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA clerk u 3 D- » - ~ lstrict&

Courts for the Distri<;r §§ 1a

Travis Jackson Marron, ) ) Plaintiff, )

> . _ . 13 04'70

v. ) Civil Act1on N0. ) City of Chesapeake Corporate Entity 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 pauperz`s. 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.

Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. l987). Rule 8(a) of the 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 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. Calzfano, 75

F,R.D. 497, 493 (D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Lawrenceville Correctional Center in Virginia. He captions his complaint: "The Administrative Notice is Coram Non Judice, Under the Foreign Sovereign immunity Act, 28 U.S.C., 1608 F.R.C.P. Rule 4(j); Conclusion of Facts With Legal Defmition of Person, Corporation, Political Subdivision, & Foreign State." The text that follows

is equally puzzling and simply fails to provide any notice of a claim. A separate Order of

/l<)/

Un` dSta Di/strict Judge

y I/e/¢j

dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: April ,2013

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

Marron v. City of Chesapeake Corporate Entity, (D.D.C. 2013).

Marron v. City of Chesapeake Corporate Entity (Marron v. City of Chesapeake Corporate Entity) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Ciralsky v. Central Intelligence Agency
355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Circuit, 2004)
Jarrell v. Tisch
656 F. Supp. 237 (District of Columbia, 1987)