BELL v. JW MARRIOTT HOTEL, No. 1:2009cv00828 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 04/22/09. (mmh, )

Download PDF
FILED MAY - 6 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA KAREEMAH BELL, Plaintiff, v. JW MARRIOTT HOTEL, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. NANCY MAYER WHITIINGTON. CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT U9 0828 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the court on review ofplaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint. The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that a complaint filed by a pro se litigant is held to a less stringent standard than is applied to a formal pleading drafted by a lawyer. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the 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). Plaintiff alleges that, on February 14, 2009, "security decided to bar [her] out of the JW /JJ) Marriot Hotel." Compl. at 1. The complaint sets forth neither a short and plain statement of this court's jurisdiction, a short and plain statement showing plaintiffs entitlement to relief, nor a demand for any particular relief. For these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for its failure to comply with Rule 8(a). An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

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.