['Patrick-Bey v. U.S. Government']

District of Columbia

['Patrick-Bey v. U.S. Government']

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedMarch 20, 2014

DocketCivil Action No. 2014-0454

StatusPublished

This text of ['Patrick-Bey v. U.S. Government'] (['Patrick-Bey v. U.S. Government']) 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

['Patrick-Bey v. U.S. Government'], (D.D.C. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED

¥§§TF§ES§§`SY§§Y§S§§§;%§§§’}§‘T§ G'e~<» 315 l»»§-ii§'§"' Courts for the Dlstrict afa William Patrick-Bey, ) Plaintiff, § v. § Civil Action N0. /*§£"" ‘§L U.S. Government, § Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se Complaint application 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. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky 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. Califano, 75

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977).

Plaintiff, a resident of Arlington, Virginia, sues the "U.S. Government," but he has made no factual allegations against the United States. See Compl. at 1 ("Catholic Charities, a subsidiary of Hillcrest Children and Family Center and also the phyc [sic] ward at Southeast Community Hospital have all attempt[ed] to assault me by way of poison medication."). Since the complaint provides no notice of a claim against the only named defendant, it will be

dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

United States District Judge

Date: March

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

FILED

¥§§TF§ES§§`SY§§Y§S§§§;%§§§’}§‘T§ G'e~<» 315 l»»§-ii§'§"' Courts for the Dlstrict afa William Patrick-Bey, ) Plaintiff, § v. § Civil Action N0. /*§£"" ‘§L U.S. Government, § Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se Complaint application 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. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky 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. Califano, 75

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977).

Plaintiff, a resident of Arlington, Virginia, sues the "U.S. Government," but he has made no factual allegations against the United States. See Compl. at 1 ("Catholic Charities, a subsidiary of Hillcrest Children and Family Center and also the phyc [sic] ward at Southeast Community Hospital have all attempt[ed] to assault me by way of poison medication."). Since the complaint provides no notice of a claim against the only named defendant, it will be

dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

United States District Judge

Date: March

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

['Patrick-Bey v. U.S. Government'], Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patrick-bey-v-us-government-dcd-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack