Slovinec v. D.C. Department of Employment Services
This text of Slovinec v. D.C. Department of Employment Services (Slovinec v. D.C. Department of Employment Services) 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
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV - 8 2010 FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia ) Joseph Slovinec, ) ) Plaintiff, )
v. ) ) Civil Action No. It) 1918 ) District of Columbia Dep't of ) Employment Services, ) ) Defendant. ) )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis
application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading
requirements of Rule 8( a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
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
complaints to contain "(1) 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (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. Califano, 75
F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977).
} In what has been liberally construed as a complaint, plaintiff, a District of Columbia
resident, sues a District of Columbia entity - the Department of Employment Services -- that
presumably may not be sued in its own name. See Braxton v. Nat 'I Capital Hous. Auth., 396
A.2d 215, 216 (D.C. 1978) ("Cases in this jurisdiction have consistently found that bodies within
the District of Columbia government are not suable as separate entities.") (citations omitted). In
any event, plaintiffs submission, captioned "Call for mediation, emergency hearing by Nov. 3 or
4," provides no notice of a claim or the basis of this Court's jurisdiction. A separate Order of
dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/n, Date: November f:J ,2010
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Slovinec v. D.C. Department of Employment Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slovinec-v-dc-department-of-employment-services-dcd-2010.