Norman v. Aston Judiciary Square

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedAugust 26, 2011
DocketCivil Action No. 2011-1539
StatusPublished

This text of Norman v. Aston Judiciary Square (Norman v. Aston Judiciary Square) 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
Norman v. Aston Judiciary Square, (D.D.C. 2011).

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT am AuG 2 6 20" FoR THE Drsri

)

Dawn Norman, ) )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Civil Action No.

Aston Judiciary Square et al., ) )

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff s 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 S(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 Ashcroft v. ]qbal, l29 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Cz`ralsky v. CIA. 355 F.3d 66l, 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. Calz`j"ano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977).

Plaintiff, a resident of Richmond, Virginia, sues two defendants in Washington D.C., one

in Richmond, Virginia, and another in New York, New York. See Compl. Caption. She seeks damages exceeding $121 million "for withholding official documentation and trespassing - out of warrent [sic] - illegal entry on property . . . ." Compl. at l. The cryptic complaint fails to provide any notice of a claim or a basis for federal court jurisdiction A separate Order of

dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Q%-

g united stat@?nfstri¢r Judg@ Date: August , 2011

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

Related

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)
Norman v. Aston Judiciary Square, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norman-v-aston-judiciary-square-dcd-2011.