BRIDGES v. TRUMP, No. 1:2023cv01068 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 05/01/2023. (zsl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
BRIDGES v. TRUMP Doc. 3 Case 1:23-cv-01068-UNA Document 3 Filed 05/01/23 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ROBERT B. BRIDGES, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-01068 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The court will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP 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. Plaintiff, a resident of Lexington, Kentucky, sues former President Donald Trump, although any connection between plaintiff’s intended claims and President Trump are unclear. Indeed, it is unknown what claims, if any, plaintiff is attempting to raise in this matter. His onepage complaint states only that “Horn Law Office,” located in Des Moines, Iowa, sent him an email regarding a “deferred prosecution order” in a traffic case brought against him, and about the forthcoming dismissal of the underlying traffic ticket. No other information is provided. 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 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:23-cv-01068-UNA Document 3 Filed 05/01/23 Page 2 of 2 the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and 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). Plaintiff’s complaint fails entirely to provide adequate notice of any claim. Plaintiff does not specify any: cause of action, supporting legal authority, alleged wrongdoing––committed by the defendant or by anyone else, damages incurred, or relief sought. The complaint also fails to establish this court’s jurisdiction or venue. Therefore, this case must be dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion. Date: May 1, 2023 Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge
]]>
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.
