DocketNumber: Civil Action No. 2009-2260
Judges: Judge Ricardo M. Urbina
Filed Date: 11/30/2009
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/30/2014
WM.ED soil 2 o 2009 UNITED srATEs DISTRICT coURT °'°" “~5' D‘S*"Ct and FoR THE Disrlucr oF CoLUMBIA bankruptcy C°“"‘°’ ) Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., ) Plaintiff, § v. § Civil Action No. Dept. of Assessment & Taxation el al., § Defendants. § ) 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 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. l987). Rule 8(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. lqbal,129 S.Ct. 1937
, 1950 (2009); Cl``ralsky 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). Plaintiff, a resident of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, sues a supervisor of the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation. Similar to most of plaintiffs previous complaints dismissed this year under Rule 8, this complaint consists of one page and a stack of unexplained attachments. The allegations are incomprehensible and, thus, fail to provide any notice of a claim and the basis of federal court jurisdiction As previously advised, see Brown v. McCarthy, Civ. Action No. 09~2074 (D.D.C. Nov. 4, 2009), plaintiff is warned that his persistence in filing such actions will result in this Court restricting his ability to proceed in forma pauperis A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. /§~»L» Y»\``§,\.L``.;;. Uni¥d SdHt€sDistrict Judge Date:November i l ,2009