Ciriello v. Executive Office of the President ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • FILEIZ}
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV 1 7 201‘:
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    Clerk, U.S. District and
    Bankruptcy Courts
    Mark S. Ciriello, )
    )
    Plaintiff, )
    ) Case: 1:14-cv-O1932
    V_ ) ASSIgned To : Unassigned
    ) Assign. Date : 11/17/2014
    Executive Office of the President, ) Descr'ptlon: Pro se Gen- ClV”
    )
    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 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) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
    complaints to contain “(1) 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 (DC. 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. 1977).
    Plaintiff is a resident of Waterbury, Connecticut, who has named the Executive Office of
    the President as the sole defendant to this action. See Compl. Caption. The complaint consists
    of a narrative about events that have nothing to do with the named defendant. Plaintiff indicates
    that he is filing here because a judge in the District of Connecticut has “banned” him from filing
    claims in that court absent his filing of “certain paper work[.]” Compl. at l. The instant
    complaint and inexplicable attachments fail to provide any notice of a claim. A separate Order
    of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
    United tates District Judge
    {R
    Date: November  ,2014
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2014-1932

Judges: Judge Rudolph Contreras

Filed Date: 11/17/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/17/2014