Ronald Emrit v. Condoleezza Rice

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 23-5063 September Term, 2022
1:23-cv-00192-UNA
Filed On: May 23, 2023
Ronald Satish Emrit,
Appellant
v.
Condoleezza Rice, Former Secretary of State
and Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State,
Appellees
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BEFORE: Wilkins and Katsas, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit
Judge
JUDGMENT
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s March 1, 2023 order be
affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s case without prejudice for
failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Appellant’s complaint did
not set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief,” which is required in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Jones v. Kirchner, 835 F.3d 74, 79 (D.C.
Cir. 2016) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/
Daniel J. Reidy
Deputy Clerk