Moore v. U.S. Department of Justice

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 23, 2017
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2017-0324
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CO_LUMBIA

Surf Moore, ) ) ‘r Plaintiff, ) l ) Case: 1:17-cv-00324 V. ) , Assigned To ; Unassigned ) § Assign. Date : 2/23/2017 U_S_ Justice Dep>t eta].’ ) ix Descrlption: Pro Se Gen. Civil (F-DECK) ) '_ Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and application for leave 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 Rule 8(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) 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, 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. Califano, 75

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

“Once again, plaintiff, a resident of Jackson, Mississippi, purports to sue the United States Department of Justice and a construction company in Chicago, lllinois.” Moore v. Justice Dep ’t., No. 14-1386, 2014 WL 4057158, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2014). This time, he seeks money damages exceeding $lOO million. See Compl. at 2 (renumbered); Moore, supra (noting that plaintif “seel

insufficient pleading See Moore, 2014 WL 4057158, at * '-g same).l A

separate Order accompanies this Memorand

Date: Februaryl 2 ,2017

United States District Judge

‘ A review of this court’s dockets reveals that since the decision in 2014, all of plaintiffs complaints (eight excluding the instant complaint), brought against the same defendants as here, have been dismissed for insufficient pleading under Rule 8. See Civ. Action Nos. 16-20, 16-21, 4 l6-182, 16-981, 16-1272,16-1701,16-2102,16-2392.