McNair v. Rei Co-Op

District of Columbia

McNair v. Rei Co-Op

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedOctober 1, 2020

DocketCivil Action No. 2020-2185

StatusPublished

This text of McNair v. Rei Co-Op (McNair v. Rei Co-Op) 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

McNair v. Rei Co-Op, (D.D.C. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT -4 2020

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District ang . Bankruptcy Courts

JIMMIE McNAIR, ) )

Plaintiff, )

)

Vv. ) Civil Action No. 20-2185 (UNA)

REI CO-OP, et al., ) )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Court is mindful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), Even pro se litigants, however, 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 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 defendants 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).

Plaintiff alleges that a female employee of the RE] CO-OP store in Washington, D.C. was “assaulting [his] integrity” when she approached him “alleging [he] had stolen something, which [he] did.” Compl. at 1. He further alleges that, when he attempted to return an item to the

REI CO-OP store in Rockville, Maryland, an employee assaulted him by snatching a bag from his hands and pointing a finger in his face. See id. Plaintiff asserts that such treatment violated company policy, and he demands an award of $5 million. /d@. The complaint does not state a basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction or include a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief. For these reasons, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a),

and the Court will dismiss it without prejudice.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: September 30, 2020 /s/ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge

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

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT -4 2020

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District ang . Bankruptcy Courts

JIMMIE McNAIR, ) )

Plaintiff, )

)

Vv. ) Civil Action No. 20-2185 (UNA)

REI CO-OP, et al., ) )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Court is mindful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), Even pro se litigants, however, 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 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 defendants 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).

Plaintiff alleges that a female employee of the RE] CO-OP store in Washington, D.C. was “assaulting [his] integrity” when she approached him “alleging [he] had stolen something, which [he] did.” Compl. at 1. He further alleges that, when he attempted to return an item to the

REI CO-OP store in Rockville, Maryland, an employee assaulted him by snatching a bag from his hands and pointing a finger in his face. See id. Plaintiff asserts that such treatment violated company policy, and he demands an award of $5 million. /d@. The complaint does not state a basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction or include a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief. For these reasons, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a),

and the Court will dismiss it without prejudice.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: September 30, 2020 /s/ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

McNair v. Rei Co-Op, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnair-v-rei-co-op-dcd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack