Rossmann v. Harvey

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 8, 2017
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2017-1096
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Brud Rossmann, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case; 1:17-Cv-01096 v, ) Assigned To : Unassigned ) Assign. Date : 6/8/2017 G. Michael Harv@y el al., ) Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil (F Deck) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review ot`plaintit`F s pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the informal 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.

Prc) se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(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. 8(a); See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky 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. Cali`fano, 75

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). “[A] complaint that is excessively long, rambling, disjointed,

incoherent, or full of irrelevant and confusing material does not meet [Rule 8’s] liberal pleading requirement.” T.M. v. D.C., 961 F. Supp. 2d 169, 174 (D.D.C. 2()l3).

Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident He purports to sue a magistrate judge of this court, G. Michael Harvey, and three "'John Doe[s]."" Compl. Caption. The rambling complaint contains no factual allegations against l\/lagistrate Judge Harvey, and no other defendants are identified in the caption of the complaint See LCvR ll.l (requiring the “first filing” to include “in the caption the name and full residence address or official address of each party”).

Consequently, this case will be dismissed without prejudicel A separate Order accompanies

, / / v Ad/¢'/¢/ ” ”t/N

~7 ,. ,V , Date: l\/Iay 5 U , 20l7 United}¢tates District Judge

this l\/Iemorandum Opinion.