Mohammed Bey v. Department of Human Services

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJanuary 20, 2012
DocketCivil Action No. 2012-0087
StatusPublished

This text of Mohammed Bey v. Department of Human Services (Mohammed Bey v. Department of Human Services) 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
Mohammed Bey v. Department of Human Services, (D.D.C. 2012).

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT 0F COLUMBIA _]AN 2 [] 2[]12 C|erk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Co|umbia

ABDUL AYAT MOHAMMED BEY, ) )

Plaintiff, )

)

v_ ) civil Acti@n No. 12 (){]8'7

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, et al., ) )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint.

The Court has reviewed plaintiff s complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haz`nes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 5l9, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, 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) 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 ofresjudz`cata applies. Brown v. Calz`j"arzo, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977). Plaintiff s complaint rambles and touches on several topics, from public assistance

(which he characterizes as a "ponzi scheme"), to welfare reform, kidnap victims, identification requirements for voters, the prosecution of the late Senator Ted Stevens, and the presidential election. lt is difficult not only to discern a viable claim within this Court’s jurisdiction, but also to identify a clear statement showing plaintiff s entitlement to the relief he seeks. Accordingly,

the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An Order consistent with this

way

DATE: IZA‘ k Unit Sta J/iiE/ge?

Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

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

Related

Jarrell v. Tisch
656 F. Supp. 237 (District of Columbia, 1987)
Brown v. Califano
75 F.R.D. 497 (District of Columbia, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mohammed Bey v. Department of Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mohammed-bey-v-department-of-human-services-dcd-2012.