West v. Gaither

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedDecember 30, 2010
DocketCivil Action No. 2010-2335
StatusPublished

This text of West v. Gaither (West v. Gaither) 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
West v. Gaither, (D.D.C. 2010).

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT y DEC 3 0 2010

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA clerk U ' - . .S. D¢stnct& Bankru

C

) Gurts for me Dlstdct of columbia Leothis West, ) ) Plaintiff, ) )

v. ) Civil Action No. j ) Timothy Gaither, ) ) Defendant. ) ) 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 S(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pro se litigants must comply with the F ederal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule S(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. 8(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. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977). In pleading fraud or mistake, "a party must state with

particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, sues an individual with a District of Columbia address for fraud. Because no facts are stated in support of the claim, the complaint will be dismissed. See West v. Gaithes, No. lO-cv-2096 (UNA) (D.D.C., Dec. l0, 2010) (same). A

separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

United States District Judge

Date: December Z}, 2010

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

Related

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Ciralsky v. Central Intelligence Agency
355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Circuit, 2004)
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)
West v. Gaither, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-v-gaither-dcd-2010.