ALY v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, No. 1:2021cv00045 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 1/12/2021. (adh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ALY v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Doc. 3 FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IBRAHIM ALY, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant. 1/12/2021 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia Civil Action No. 21-45 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s Complaint For Interpleader And Declaratory Relief, ECF No. 1, and application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (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, mount 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). It also assists the Court in determining whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, has filed a cryptically worded form pleading and 249 pages of exhibits. A complaint, such as this, that is “rambling, disjointed, incoherent, or full of irrelevant and confusing material will patently fail [Rule 8(a)’s] standard,” as will “a complaint that contains an untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely stated[.]” Jiggetts v. District of Columbia, 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff'd sub nom. Cooper v. District of Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Therefore, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: January 12, 2021 _________/s/_______________ TANYA S. CHUTKAN 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.
