Moore v. United States Department of Justice

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedFebruary 26, 2014
DocketCivil Action No. 2014-0313
StatusPublished

This text of Moore v. United States Department of Justice (Moore v. United States Department of Justice) 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
Moore v. United States Department of Justice, (D.D.C. 2014).

Opinion

FILED

UNITED sTATEs DISTRICT CoURT FEB 2 5 Zol'* <>F Surf Moore, ) Plaintiff, g v, § civil A¢ti@n N@. /'}¢ -_3 Justice Dept. et al., g Defendants. § )

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se Complaint application to proceed informa 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 8(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. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2()09); 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. Cal;`fano, 75

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977).

The plaintiff, a resident of Jackson, Mississippi, purports to sue the United States Department of Justice and a construction company based in Chicago, lllinois. Compl. at 2. The Complaint consists wholly of incoherent statements and contains no discernible request for

relief. Hence, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum

Opinion. /"`o // <3/_/ 3 ` United Dlsffict judge Date: February ,2014

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

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)
Brown v. Califano
75 F.R.D. 497 (District of Columbia, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Moore v. United States Department of Justice, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-united-states-department-of-justice-dcd-2014.