BRETT v. FENTY et al, No. 1:2009cv02411 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/13/09. (ls, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Frank Brett, Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) DEC 23 2009 Mayor Fenty et aI., Defendants. Civil Action No. ) ) ) ) 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 Ashcroft 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). 3 Plaintiff, a resident of Baltimore, Maryland, sues District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty, the Library of Congress and a librarian there who he claims "gave [him] the run around" when he requested her assistance. Plaintiff alleges that Mayor Fenty "slandered" him and "tried to steal [his] civil rights" but in what way is unknown because plaintiff has not stated any supporting facts. The complaint is mostly incomprehensible and, thus, fails to provide any notice of a claim or the basis for federal court jurisdiction. ~..........-....,",,'I be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinio United States District Judge Date: Decembef-1-, 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.
