JULIUS v. BRANCH METRO BUS TRAIN, No. 1:2012cv00773 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4/30/2012. (ls, )

Download PDF
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) TYRONE JULIUS, Plaintiff, v. MRS. BRANCH METRO BUS AND TRAIN, Defendant. MAY 1 4 2012 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia Civil Action No. 12 0773 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the court on review of three civil complaints filed by plaintiff along with applications to proceed in forma pauperis. The court will grant the applications and dismiss the complaints. The court has reviewed plaintiffs complaints, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,520 (1972). Even prose 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 1 doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977). These complaints contain neither a short and plain statement of a claim showing plaintiffs entitlement to relief nor any indication of the claims asserted against the defendants. As drafted, the complaints fail to comply with Rule 8(a) and all will be dismissed. An Order is issued separately. DATE:~ 5DJ .:>_o 1.}.. 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.