All Courts |
Federal Courts |
US Federal District Court Cases |
District Court, District of Columbia |
2012-04 |
-
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APR 2 3 2012 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA us 0 . cClerk·tor the •strict. & 8ankruptcy ourts · · Oi t s net ot Columbia ) Clinton Moorman, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) Civil Action No. 12 0632 ) Ciba-Geigy Corp., ) ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs 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 ofRule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Prose 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 ofCivil 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 (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. 1977). 3 Plaintiff is a resident of Orlando, Florida, suing a corporation. The complaint consists mostly of incoherent scribble and disjointed phrases, but plaintiff accuses defendant of attempted murder, "conspiracy to racial [sic] profile, discriminate and defraud me of my civil rights," invasion of privacy, and numerous other misdeeds. Compl. at 15-16. The complaint is devoid of supporting facts and, therefore, fails to provide adequate notice of a claim. Furthermore, the basis of federal court jurisdiction is neither stated nor discerned. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. ---q:, Date: April _i!L_, 2012 2
Document Info
Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2012-0632
Judges: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
Filed Date: 4/23/2012
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/30/2014