Neal v. Kane

District of Columbia

Neal v. Kane

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJuly 23, 2012

DocketCivil Action No. 2012-1212

StatusPublished

This text of Neal v. Kane (Neal v. Kane) 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

Neal v. Kane, (D.D.C. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

UN1TE1) sTATEs 1)1sTR1CT CoURT FoR THE DISTRICT oF coLUMBL». ii t » ~

ROBERT D. NEAL, ) Plaintiff, § v. § Civil Action No. 1 2 THOMAS R. KANE, § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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 Hal`nes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 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 8(a) of the F ederal 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. S(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 ofresjudicata applies. Brown v. Calz'fano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiff is a prisoner who currently is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional institution in Terre Haute, Indiana. He alleges to have "suffered mightily at the hands of this Defendant," Compl. 11 8, the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, who has breached a settlement agreement, see z`a'. at 7. Missing from the Complaint are any allegations with respect to the nature or content of the settlement agreement. Nor does the Complaint specify the "bad acts,"

z`a’., that defendant allegedly has committed.

As drafted, the Complaint fails to comply with Rule S(a), and it will be dismissed. An

Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

United Stat`e's District Judge

DATE: v Xt¢[l_?{r

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

UN1TE1) sTATEs 1)1sTR1CT CoURT FoR THE DISTRICT oF coLUMBL». ii t » ~

ROBERT D. NEAL, ) Plaintiff, § v. § Civil Action No. 1 2 THOMAS R. KANE, § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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 Hal`nes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 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 8(a) of the F ederal 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. S(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 ofresjudicata applies. Brown v. Calz'fano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiff is a prisoner who currently is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional institution in Terre Haute, Indiana. He alleges to have "suffered mightily at the hands of this Defendant," Compl. 11 8, the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, who has breached a settlement agreement, see z`a'. at 7. Missing from the Complaint are any allegations with respect to the nature or content of the settlement agreement. Nor does the Complaint specify the "bad acts,"

z`a’., that defendant allegedly has committed.

As drafted, the Complaint fails to comply with Rule S(a), and it will be dismissed. An

Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

United Stat`e's District Judge

DATE: v Xt¢[l_?{r

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Neal v. Kane, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neal-v-kane-dcd-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack