Rushing v. United States
This text of Rushing v. United States (Rushing v. United States) 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.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED AUG. 4, 2021 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia
SHAUN RUSHING, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 21-01906 (UNA) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Court has reviewed 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). But even 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 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. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule
8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claims being asserted such that they can prepare a
responsive answer, prepare 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).
1 Plaintiff alleges that employees of a federal district court discriminated against him and
denied him due process. He states that he has filed more than 70 cases in six years, presumably
without success, and he has chosen to sue the United States.
As drafted, Plaintiff’s pro se complaint fails to comply with the minimal pleading standard
set forth in Rule 8(a). There are far too few facts alleged to state a viable legal claim, and certainly
too few facts to show an entitlement to an award of $10 trillion Therefore, the Court will dismiss
the complaint without prejudice and will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis. An
Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
DATE: August 4, 2021 CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rushing v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rushing-v-united-states-dcd-2021.