Ruther v. Wells Fargo Bank Ltd

District of Columbia

Ruther v. Wells Fargo Bank Ltd

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedDecember 4, 2017

DocketCivil Action No. 2017-1946

StatusPublished

This text of Ruther v. Wells Fargo Bank Ltd (Ruther v. Wells Fargo Bank Ltd) 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. Wells Fargo Bank Ltd, (D.D.C. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F I L E D FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEC ~'¢ 2017

L. RUTHER, Clvrk. u.s. msmcz & 5a ~ nkru tc Plaimiff, _ z Courts for the Dlstdct 01 Colui]nbila v. : Civil Action No. l7-l946 (UNA)

WELLS FARGO BANK, LTD,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs 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 Haz`nes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 5 l 9, 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 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, 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 or include a statement of a cognizable claim showing plaintiff’ s entitlement to relief. 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.

DATE; lR/H / 1@\/) /é% /MQ

Uriited/States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F I L E D FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEC ~'¢ 2017

L. RUTHER, Clvrk. u.s. msmcz & 5a ~ nkru tc Plaimiff, _ z Courts for the Dlstdct 01 Colui]nbila v. : Civil Action No. l7-l946 (UNA)

WELLS FARGO BANK, LTD,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs 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 Haz`nes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 5 l 9, 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 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, 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 or include a statement of a cognizable claim showing plaintiff’ s entitlement to relief. 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.

DATE; lR/H / 1@\/) /é% /MQ

Uriited/States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ruther v. Wells Fargo Bank Ltd, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruther-v-wells-fargo-bank-ltd-dcd-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack