Tiburicio v. Obama

D.C. Circuit

Tiburicio v. Obama

437 F. App'x 1

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 18, 2011

DocketNo. 11-5155

StatusPublished

This text of 437 F. App'x 1 (Tiburicio v. Obama) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tiburicio v. Obama, 437 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. See Fed. RApp. P. 84(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 21, 2011, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice on the ground that it did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C.Cir.2004). That rule requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a). To comply with the rule, a complaint should identify the “circumstances, occurrences, and events” that support the claim for relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 n. 3, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citation omitted).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. See Fed. RApp. P. 84(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 21, 2011, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice on the ground that it did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C.Cir.2004). That rule requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a). To comply with the rule, a complaint should identify the “circumstances, occurrences, and events” that support the claim for relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 n. 3, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citation omitted).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

437 F. App'x 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tiburicio-v-obama-cadc-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack