Wright v. U.S. Labor workforce/national Security

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJanuary 30, 2014
DocketCivil Action No. 2014-0147
StatusPublished

This text of Wright v. U.S. Labor workforce/national Security (Wright v. U.S. Labor workforce/national Security) 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
Wright v. U.S. Labor workforce/national Security, (D.D.C. 2014).

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AN 3 o

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. Dlstrlct & Bankruptcy

Glenn Rodney wright ) Courts for the Distr|ct of columbia

Plaintiff, § v. i civil A¢ii

U.S. Labor Workforce/ §

National Security et al., ) Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM OPlNION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the plaintiff s pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperz`s. 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. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) ofthe 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 66l, 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. Calq`fano, 75

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

The plaintiff is a resident of Memphis, Tennessee. The complaint consists of disjointed statements and the named defendants do not appear to be entities capable of being sued. Even if the defendants are subject to a lawsuit, the plaintiff s statements provide no logical link to the

defendants and, therefore, fail to provide them adequate notice of a claim. Hence, this case will

Unité/d/States District Judge

be dismissed.l

Dai@; January /o’, 2014

' A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

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)
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)
Wright v. U.S. Labor workforce/national Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-us-labor-workforcenational-security-dcd-2014.