HICKMAN v. COPYRIGHT ROYALTY BOARD, No. 1:2009cv01362 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Richard W. Roberts on 7/16/09. (ls, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
PILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUl 13 L;~Jj Clerk, U.S. District ann Bankruptcy Courts DERIAN DOUGLAS HICKMAN, Plaintiff, v. COPYRIGHT ROYALTY BOARD, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 09 1362 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the court on review ofplaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint. The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, 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 pro se 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) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement ofthe 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 doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Plaintiff demands "payment of any royalty payments for use of copyrights, trademarks, [and] patents," an amount which "could exceed [$] 1 billion." Compl. at 1. As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a) because it fails to include a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief. For this reason, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. United States District Judge Date: r ". ,.,
]]>
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.
