Moore v. Justice Department
This text of Moore v. Justice Department (Moore v. Justice Department) 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.
Opinion
FILED
UNITED STATES DlSTRICT COURT 1 8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Clerk, U.S. D|strict and Bankruptcy C0urts Surf Moore, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) civil Aaioii No. /4[ _ /(9_/(
) Justice Dep’t. et al., )
> (uuA) Defendants. ` ) )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’ s pro se Complaint and application 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 Ruie S(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. jarrell v. T:'sch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. ]987). 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 Ashcroft v. ]qbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (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. Calz`fano, 75
F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).
The plaintiff, a resident of .lackson, Mississippi, purports to sue the United States Departrnent of Justice and a construction company in Chicago, Illinois. See Compl. Caption. Plaintiff claims that defendants have conspired to violate certain constitutional provisions and federal law, see Compl. at 2, 13-15, but the complaint consists of recitations of constitutional arnendments and federal statutes and incoherent statements Plaintiff has alleged no facts to provide the defendants with adequate notice of a claim. Hence, this case will be dismissed. A
separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
m-"" United`St~atee)District Judge Date: July i 1 ,2014
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Moore v. Justice Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-justice-department-dcd-2014.