Ruther v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJune 30, 2017
DocketCivil Action No. 2017-1116
StatusPublished

This text of Ruther v. United States (Ruther 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.

Bluebook
Ruther v. United States, (D.D.C. 2017).

Opinion

F!LED JuNau 2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT CoURT gm u,s, mmr a. amkruprcy FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBIA mm "\' °'W‘°‘°' °°'“"‘°'° L. RUTHER, Plaintiff, v. : Civil Action No. l7-l 1 16 (UNA)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

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 notes that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hal'nes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 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 forjudgment 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, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine of res

judicata applies. Brown v. Calz'fano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

The complaint is barely legible. lt does not appear to state the grounds upon which this court’s jurisdiction depends, include a statement of a cognizable claim showing plaintiffs entitlement to relief, or set forth a basis for an award of 319 million. As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the standard set forth in Rule 8(a), and therefore, it must be dismissed An Order

consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

United States bistrict Judge

DATE; ;g?Wz/?» ROM¢MJ/M &)/Z ~

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

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Jarrell v. Tisch
656 F. Supp. 237 (District of Columbia, 1987)
Brown v. Califano
75 F.R.D. 497 (District of Columbia, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ruther v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruther-v-united-states-dcd-2017.