Washington v. USA Country

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedMarch 16, 2009
DocketCivil Action No. 2009-0493
StatusPublished

This text of Washington v. USA Country (Washington v. USA Country) 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
Washington v. USA Country, (D.D.C. 2009).

Opinion

FILED MAR 1 6 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NANCy MAYER WHITTINGTON CLERK FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA U.S. DISTRICT COUffr'

SHERRY WASHINGTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 09 0493 ) U.S.A., et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs application to proceed in

forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the

complaint.

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs 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) ofthe 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 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).

11/ The complaint is so vague and confusing that it utterly fails to "give the defendant fair

notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Conley v. Gibson,

355 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1957). For this reason, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice

for failure to comply with Rule 8(a). An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is

issued separately.

Date: " IL y~ j (l) f L- (Pt) G7

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

Related

Conley v. Gibson
355 U.S. 41 (Supreme Court, 1957)
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)
Washington v. USA Country, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-usa-country-dcd-2009.