Moreno-Baltierra v. United States Health & Human Services

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedDecember 2, 2013
DocketCivil Action No. 2013-1902
StatusPublished

This text of Moreno-Baltierra v. United States Health & Human Services (Moreno-Baltierra v. United States Health & 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
Moreno-Baltierra v. United States Health & Human Services, (D.D.C. 2013).

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT clerk ~ 2 2013 FoR THE r)isrmcr oF CoLUMBIA coun§ :driiil;li)tis'irti§g?'¢';'.‘,',‘,',‘,’,f§l§

Dominique Moreno-Baltierra, ) )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. /;"'

United States ) Health & Human Services et al., ) )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

'l`his matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’ s 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.

Pr0 se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule S(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. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (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. Califano, 75

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

Plaintiff purports to sue the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the States of Califomia and Kentucky, or agencies within those states. The complaint, however, consists of incoherent statements and various unexplained attachments Since the complaint provides no notice of a claim, it fails to comply with Rule 8(a) and, thus, will be dismissed A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. C,<,»ua>} 7/" v< .»,

a United States District Judge Date: November , 2013

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)
Moreno-Baltierra v. United States Health & Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moreno-baltierra-v-united-states-health-human-serv-dcd-2013.