SHAW v. NEGASI et al, No. 1:2022cv00832 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 03/29/2022. (znmg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WILLIAM TERRELL SHAW, Plaintiff, v. SEMIRA NEGASI, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 22-0832(UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff submits his complaint on a preprinted form titled “Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights.” In Section I, where plaintiff would fill in plaintiff’s and defendants’ names and contact information, plaintiff writes, “SEE ATTACHED.” ECF No. 1 at 2 (page numbers designated by CM/ECF). Attached to the preprinted form are several documents, and because plaintiff has highlighted certain information on these documents, the Court presumes that the named defendants are three members of the administrative staff of Friendship Terrace, the Metropolitan Police Department, the law firm representing plaintiff’s landlord, and, it appears, the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington. ECF No. 1 at 4-6, 11. Section II of the form, where plaintiff should indicate the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction, is blank, ECF No. 1 at 7, as is Section III, where plaintiff should state his claim, ECF No. 1 at 8. The only section plaintiff completed, Section V, is a demand for an award of $5 million. ECF No. 1 at 11. 1 Given the total absence of factual allegations, the complaint fails to meet the minimum pleading standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Plaintiff not only fails to set forth a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, but also fails to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that he is entitled to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). As drafted, the complaint does not 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. See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). A separate Order will issue. DATE: March 29, 2022 /s/ AMIT P. MEHTA 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.
