Riethmiller v. United States Senate Committee on International Affairs

District of Columbia

Riethmiller v. United States Senate Committee on International Affairs

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedMay 23, 2014

DocketCivil Action No. 2014-0878

StatusPublished

This text of Riethmiller v. United States Senate Committee on International Affairs (Riethmiller v. United States Senate Committee on International Affairs) 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

Riethmiller v. United States Senate Committee on International Affairs, (D.D.C. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED

MAY 2 3 ZUV\ UNITEI) STATES DISTR1CT CoURT mm u_s_ mann & Ban,,mptcy FoR THE DISTRICT or CoLUMBIA cwmto¢u=a uranium columbia ' ANNAMARIE RIETHMM.ER, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. "’

UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, er al.,

\.J\.»/\_/\_/\~J\_/\-.I\-/\-_/\-_/

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff’ s application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the

complaint.

The Court has reviewed the plaintiff’ s complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 23 7, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule S(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. S(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being

asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to

determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Caly'arzo, 75 F.R.D. 497', 498 (D.D.C. 1977). The Court has read the complaint carefully, and identifies no cognizable legal claim. The pleading is verbose and incoherent, and, as drafted, it utterly fails to comply v»rith

Rule S(a). Accordingly, the complaint and this civil action will be dismissed.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

é¢/,/. //)»/S&

Unifcd'State/s f)istrict judge

DATE; jj/j/Zp/%

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

FILED

MAY 2 3 ZUV\ UNITEI) STATES DISTR1CT CoURT mm u_s_ mann & Ban,,mptcy FoR THE DISTRICT or CoLUMBIA cwmto¢u=a uranium columbia ' ANNAMARIE RIETHMM.ER, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. "’

UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, er al.,

\.J\.»/\_/\_/\~J\_/\-.I\-/\-_/\-_/

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff’ s application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the

complaint.

The Court has reviewed the plaintiff’ s complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 23 7, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule S(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. S(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being

asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to

determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Caly'arzo, 75 F.R.D. 497', 498 (D.D.C. 1977). The Court has read the complaint carefully, and identifies no cognizable legal claim. The pleading is verbose and incoherent, and, as drafted, it utterly fails to comply v»rith

Rule S(a). Accordingly, the complaint and this civil action will be dismissed.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

é¢/,/. //)»/S&

Unifcd'State/s f)istrict judge

DATE; jj/j/Zp/%

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Riethmiller v. United States Senate Committee on International Affairs, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riethmiller-v-united-states-senate-committee-on-in-dcd-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack