BROWN v. NORRIS et al, No. 1:2009cv00720 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 04/08/09. (mmh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
,'" . FILED APR 2 1 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., et al., NANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON. CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT ) ) Plaintiff(s), ) ) v. ) ) Brooks Norris, Supervisor, ) Corespondence and Constituent Services, ) Office of the Governor et al., ) ) Defendant(s). ) Civil Action No. 09 0720 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court is the pro se complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint without prejudice. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement ofthe grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for jUdgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977). The Complaint fails to meet the requirements of Rule 8(a). The complaint does not make clear whether there is one plaintiff or multiple plaintiffs. It does not indicate what the defendants did to cause injury to the plaintiff(s) or what reliefthe plaintiff(s) seek. Most importantly, the complaint does not set forth a short and plain statement regarding this Court's jurisdiction over this matter, and the court cannot discern any basis for its jurisdiction on the face of this complaint. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An appropriate order accompanies this memorandum opinion. Uni d States District Judge -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
