Phillips v. Distict of Columbia

District of Columbia

Phillips v. Distict of Columbia

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedNovember 16, 2011

DocketCivil Action No. 2011-2036

StatusPublished

This text of Phillips v. Distict of Columbia (Phillips v. Distict of Columbia) 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

Phillips v. Distict of Columbia, (D.D.C. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT CoURT L FOR THE DISTRICT oF COLUMBIA 4 t NUV j b 2011

) Clerk, u.s. ::»' t ' t David P. Phillips, ) Bankruptc;l/S€bliirt?snd ) Plaintiff, ) ) n h v. ) CivilAct1on No. lt ) District of Columbia (U.S.A.), ) ) Defendant. ) ) 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) ofthe 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 (2009); Cz`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, 498 (D.D.C. l977).

Plaintiff is a homeless individual suing the District of Columbia for $l billion. He

alleges only that "[u]pon arrival have been harassed and involved against my will in many

altercations without an appropriate investigation." This cryptic allegation fails to provide any notice of a claim. See BelI Atlarztz'c C0rp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (a plaintiffs "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .") (citations omitted). Therefore, the complaint will be dismissed A separate Order accompanies

this Memorandum Opinion.

4 %m»&/

/ Umted States Distr/%t Judge Date: November/f /1/ , 2011

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT CoURT L FOR THE DISTRICT oF COLUMBIA 4 t NUV j b 2011

) Clerk, u.s. ::»' t ' t David P. Phillips, ) Bankruptc;l/S€bliirt?snd ) Plaintiff, ) ) n h v. ) CivilAct1on No. lt ) District of Columbia (U.S.A.), ) ) Defendant. ) ) 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) ofthe 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 (2009); Cz`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, 498 (D.D.C. l977).

Plaintiff is a homeless individual suing the District of Columbia for $l billion. He

alleges only that "[u]pon arrival have been harassed and involved against my will in many

altercations without an appropriate investigation." This cryptic allegation fails to provide any notice of a claim. See BelI Atlarztz'c C0rp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (a plaintiffs "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .") (citations omitted). Therefore, the complaint will be dismissed A separate Order accompanies

this Memorandum Opinion.

4 %m»&/

/ Umted States Distr/%t Judge Date: November/f /1/ , 2011

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Phillips v. Distict of Columbia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-distict-of-columbia-dcd-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack