Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia grants the pro se plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismisses the complaint without prejudice. The court concludes that the complaint fails to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because its allegations are unclear, conclusory, and insufficient to establish subject-matter jurisdiction.
Holdings
- A pro se complaint must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and a complaint consisting of unclear, conclusory, confused, and rambling allegations that fails to provide fair notice does not satisfy Rule 8.
- A complaint that fails to establish the court's subject matter jurisdiction is subject to dismissal.
Questions Presented
- Whether the pro se complaint complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), 8(d)(1), and 10(b).
- Whether the complaint adequately established the district court's subject matter jurisdiction.
- Whether the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice on initial review.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (7)
- Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239–40 (D.D.C. 1987)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009)(followed)
- Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668–71 (D.C. Cir. 2004)(followed)
- Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977)(followed)
- Jiggetts v. District of Columbia, 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff'd sub nom. Cooper v. District of Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017)(followed)
- Cheeks v. Fort Myer Construction Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014)(followed)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…