Nickerson-Malpher v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 30, 2012
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2012-0677
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

APR 3 0 2012 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT clerk u s D_ ' FC)R THE DISTRICT OF COLI)MBIA com tarihe’?f!é?$f§ §?'é'f,'»`.'.‘.'$§l'a

)

Margaret Kathleen Nickerson-Malpher, ) )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Civil Action No.

United States of America et al. , ) )

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. Tisch, 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 Ashcrofl v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2()09); Cl`ralsky 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. Calzfano, 75

F.R.D. 497, 493 (D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiff is a resident of Littleton, l\/Iassachusetts, suing the United States and the State of Maine, but she has stated no facts from which a claim may be gleaned. The complaint is captioned "Take J udicial Notice and Administrative Notice: In the Nature of a Writ of Error Coram Nobis, and a Demand for Dismissal for Failure to State the Proper Jurisdiction and Venue." lt consists mostly of incomprehensible and disjointed statements and a recital of various federal laws. Plaintiff claims, inter alia, to be "placing a Demand for jurisdiction and venue change under new discovery of information of fraud and failure of disclosure by the Court, the Prosecutor & District attorney, and, therefore dismissal of charges, with prejudice, . . . because of fraud placed upon the court." Compl. at 3. She does not identify the court in which such "charges" were brought or state why this Court would have any authority to dismiss the charges. The complaint simply fails to present any notice of a claim or a basis for federal court

jurisdiction. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

'¥L United States District Judge z

Date:April ,2012