Slupkowski v. General Counsel (Usn) Department of the Navy

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedSeptember 8, 2009
DocketCivil Action No. 2009-1394
StatusPublished

This text of Slupkowski v. General Counsel (Usn) Department of the Navy (Slupkowski v. General Counsel (Usn) Department of the Navy) 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
Slupkowski v. General Counsel (Usn) Department of the Navy, (D.D.C. 2009).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STANLEY A. SLUPKOWSKI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1394 (RWR) ) GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT ) OF THE NAVY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

For the reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss the plaintiff’s pro se civil complaint.

It appears that plaintiff seeks an Order to effect the transfer of records pertaining to his

military service, veterans benefits, social security benefits, and proceedings in other courts in

other jurisdictions “to the District of Columbia for PERMANENT CUSTODY.” Compl. at 2

(emphasis in original). Plaintiff does not articulate clearly the purpose of the transfer of records.

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). Even pro se litigants, however,

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

1 standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim 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. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

As drafted, the Court concludes that the complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a), and

for this reason, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

An final Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Signed this 8th day of September, 2009.

/s/ RICHARD W. ROBERTS United States District Judge

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)
Slupkowski v. General Counsel (Usn) Department of the Navy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slupkowski-v-general-counsel-usn-department-of-the-dcd-2009.