RUSHING v. STATE OF MICHIGAN, No. 1:2021cv01904 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Carl J. Nichols on 10/12/2021. (znmg)

Download PDF
RUSHING v. STATE OF MICHIGAN Doc. 3 Case 1:21-cv-01904-UNA Document 3 Filed 10/12/21 Page 1 of 2 FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHAUN RUSHING, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MICHIGAN, Defendant. OCT. 12, 2021 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia Civil Action No. 21-01904 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s 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) 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 claims being asserted such that they can prepare a responsive answer, prepare 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). The Plaintiff, also known as Alexis Legree, allegedly was charged with a crime and apparently a State court convicted him and imposed a sentence. The State appellate courts did not overturn the conviction, and plaintiff’s public defender failed to argue that certain evidence be 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-01904-UNA Document 3 Filed 10/12/21 Page 2 of 2 introduced. For these acts, plaintiff demands an award of $110 trillion from each of four defendants. As drafted, plaintiff’s pro se complaint fails to comply with the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a). There are far too few facts alleged to state a viable legal claim, and certainly too few facts to show an entitlement to an award of $440 trillion. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice and will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. DATE: October 12, 2021 ______________________ CARL J. NICHOLS 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.