KEARBY v. SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE, No. 1:2009cv02276 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 11/25/09. (ls, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED NOV 302009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Deborah K. Kearby, Plaintiff, v. Social Security Office in DC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts 09 2276 ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma 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 Ashcrofi v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralsky 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). \~ Plaintiff, who lists her address as homeless in Washington, D.C., sues a Social Security Office in the District of Columbia, but most of her statements are unrelated to social security benefits. She does indicate that her receipt of social security benefits may be ending in November 2009, see CompI. at 2, but that claim appears to be the subject of an action pending before Judge Reggie B. Walton. See Kearby v. Brown, Civ. Action No. 09-2000. Rather than direct the assignment of this mostly incoherent complaint as related to the pending action, the Court will dismiss it under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. ~~.~ Date: November 9-5," 2009 United 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.
