MOORMAN v. CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION, No. 1:2012cv00632 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4/14/2012. (ls, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clinton Moorman, Plaintiff, V. Ciba-Geigy Corp., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. APR 2 3 2012 us 0 . cClerk·tor the ¢strict. & 8ankruptcy · · Oi t ourts s net ot Columbia 12 0632 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs 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 ofRule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Prose 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) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil 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 is a resident of Orlando, Florida, suing a corporation. The complaint consists mostly of incoherent scribble and disjointed phrases, but plaintiff accuses defendant of attempted murder, "conspiracy to racial [sic] profile, discriminate and defraud me of my civil rights," invasion of privacy, and numerous other misdeeds. Compl. at 15-16. The complaint is devoid of supporting facts and, therefore, fails to provide adequate notice of a claim. Furthermore, the basis of federal court jurisdiction is neither stated nor discerned. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. ---q:, Date: April _i!L_, 2012 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.
