Perea v. Supreme Court of California

District of Columbia

Perea v. Supreme Court of California

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided August 25, 2010·No. Civil Action No. 2010-1442·Published

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBIA AUG 2 5 2010 ) C%,cirrtg 2f1 Guy Ralph Perea, Sr., ) Plaintiff, § v, § Civil Action No. Supreme Court of Califomia et al., § Defendants. § ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This 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.

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 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. S(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (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. 1977).

Plaintiff, a California parolee, sues, inter alia, the Supreme Court of Califomia, the Superior Court of California, President Barack Obama, former President George W. Bush and the "Country of Pakestand." Compl. Caption. What follows after the case caption is

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

ira 4;,,

United States District Judge Date: August , 2010

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

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBIA AUG 2 5 2010 ) C%,cirrtg 2f1 Guy Ralph Perea, Sr., ) Plaintiff, § v, § Civil Action No. Supreme Court of Califomia et al., § Defendants. § ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This 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.

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 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. S(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (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. 1977).

Plaintiff, a California parolee, sues, inter alia, the Supreme Court of Califomia, the Superior Court of California, President Barack Obama, former President George W. Bush and the "Country of Pakestand." Compl. Caption. What follows after the case caption is

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

ira 4;,,

United States District Judge Date: August , 2010

Perea v. Supreme Court of California, (D.D.C. 2010).

Pincite

Perea v. Supreme Court of California (Perea v. Supreme Court of California) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related