From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Idrogo v. Foxx

United States District Court, District of Columbia.
Oct 25, 2013
990 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 13–1662

2013-10-25

Michael Idrogo, Plaintiff, v. Anthony Foxx, et al., Defendants.



Michael Idrogo, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

MEMORANDUM OPINION


, United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (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 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 is a Texas resident. He purports to sue U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, certain members of Congress, and other individuals. See Compl. Caption. The cryptic statements comprising the complaint provide no notice of claim or a basis for federal court jurisdiction and, thus, fail to comply with Rule 8(a). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.


Summaries of

Idrogo v. Foxx

United States District Court, District of Columbia.
Oct 25, 2013
990 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2013)
Case details for

Idrogo v. Foxx

Case Details

Full title:Michael Idrogo, Plaintiff, v. Anthony Foxx, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Date published: Oct 25, 2013

Citations

990 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2013)

Citing Cases

Saunders v. Davis

But even pro se litigants "must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Idrogo v. Foxx, 990 F.…

Koch v. Clayton

Lastly, although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is obligated to adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil…