Smith v. United States of America

District of Columbia

Smith v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided March 31, 2011·No. Civil Action No. 2011-0655·Published

Opinion

FILED

UNITED sTATEs Dlsrnic"r coURT stem FAR _3 _l 29" <»~

)

Julia V. Smith, ) )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Civil Action No. ‘ 5

USA, D.C., ) )

Defendants. )

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. 23 7, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires complaints to contain "(l) 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. S(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. Callfano, 75

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiff, a resident of Wayne, Maine, sues the United States and what is presumed to be the District of Columbia. The complaint, consisting mostly of disjointed phrases and rambling statements, fails to provide any notice of a claim. Plaintiff suggests, inter alia, that she is seeking agency records under the Freedom of Inforrnation Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, but she has not named any federal agencies as defendants to this action and alleged in the complaint that she was improperly denied agency records. Hence, the Court will dismiss the complaint in its entirety

without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

,¢/\ASM~

UnitedvStates District Judge

Dare; march "( , 2011

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

FILED

UNITED sTATEs Dlsrnic"r coURT stem FAR _3 _l 29" <»~

)

Julia V. Smith, ) )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Civil Action No. ‘ 5

USA, D.C., ) )

Defendants. )

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. 23 7, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires complaints to contain "(l) 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. S(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. Callfano, 75

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiff, a resident of Wayne, Maine, sues the United States and what is presumed to be the District of Columbia. The complaint, consisting mostly of disjointed phrases and rambling statements, fails to provide any notice of a claim. Plaintiff suggests, inter alia, that she is seeking agency records under the Freedom of Inforrnation Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, but she has not named any federal agencies as defendants to this action and alleged in the complaint that she was improperly denied agency records. Hence, the Court will dismiss the complaint in its entirety

without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

,¢/\ASM~

UnitedvStates District Judge

Dare; march "( , 2011

Smith v. United States of America, (D.D.C. 2011).

Pincite

Smith v. United States of America (Smith v. United States of America) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related