BROWN v. MCCARTHY, No. 1:2009cv02074 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on 10/26/09. (ls, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Plaintiff, v. Associate County Attorney Brennan C. McCarthy, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. NOV - 4 2009 Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts 09 2074 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed informa 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. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires complaints to contain "(1) 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. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Oralsky 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). \~ .3 Plaintiff, a resident of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, sues an associate county attorney presumably for Prince George's County, Maryland. Similar to plaintiffs previous eight 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. Plaintiff is advised 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. Date: Octobe.l b, 2009 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.
