Summary
The U.S. 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 holds that the complaint fails to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because its allegations are vague, rambling, and insufficient to provide fair notice or establish subject-matter jurisdiction.
Holdings
- The complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because it failed to provide a short and plain statement of the grounds for jurisdiction and a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief, and its allegations were vague, broad, and rambling.
- The complaint failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction and failed to state a plausible claim for relief.
Questions Presented
- Whether the pro se complaint satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), 8(d)(1), and 10(b).
- Whether the complaint adequately stated the grounds for subject-matter jurisdiction and a plausible claim for relief.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (8)
- 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. Dist. of Columbia, 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017)(followed)
- Cooper v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017)(followed)
- Cheeks v. Fort Myer Constr. Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014)(followed)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…