Spencer v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedApril 10, 2019
DocketCivil Action No. 2018-2741
StatusPublished

This text of Spencer v. United States (Spencer 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
Spencer v. United States, (D.D.C. 2019).

Opinion

APR~ 1,\2019

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT clerk, U_S_ District & gankruptcy FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUF'IS for the DiStrict of Co|umbia ROLLIN LEE SPENCER, ) Plaintiff, § ` v. § Civil Action No. 18-2741 (UNA) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the Court upon review of plaintiffs application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assorted documents, including a “Notice of Errata” and “Motion to Expidit [sic] Hearing.” The Court has reviewed plaintiffs submission, keeping in mind that pleadings 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. 5 l9, 520 (1972). Evenpro se litigants, however, must comply With the F ederal 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. Califano, 'l'5 F.R.D. 497, 498

(D.D.C. 1977).

Aside from plaintiff s failure to submit documents in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 and Local Civil Rule 5.1, and his failure to respond to the Court’s January 18, 2019 Order, the pleading alleges no facts and generally fails to set forth a short and plain statement showing plaintiffs entitlement to relief as is required under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure \8 (a). Accordingly, the Court will grant plaintiffs application to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismiss the complaint

An Order is issued separately.

l/'M_/,

Un`fceld/ States District Judge

DATE:March 22 ,2019

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

Related

Arciniega v. Freeman
404 U.S. 4 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Jarrell v. Tisch
656 F. Supp. 237 (District of Columbia, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Spencer v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spencer-v-united-states-dcd-2019.