From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Norris

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Apr 8, 2009
Civil Action No. 09 0720 (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 09 0720.

April 8, 2009


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Before the Court is the pro se complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint without prejudice.

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 claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

The Complaint fails to meet the requirements of Rule 8(a). The complaint does not make clear whether there is one plaintiff or multiple plaintiffs. It does not indicate what the defendants did to cause injury to the plaintiff(s) or what relief the plaintiff(s) seek. Most importantly, the complaint does not set forth a short and plain statement regarding this Court's jurisdiction over this matter, and the court cannot discern any basis for its jurisdiction on the face of this complaint. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An appropriate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.


Summaries of

Brown v. Norris

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Apr 8, 2009
Civil Action No. 09 0720 (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2009)
Case details for

Brown v. Norris

Case Details

Full title:Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., et al., Plaintiff(s), v. Brooks Norris…

Court:United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Apr 8, 2009

Citations

Civil Action No. 09 0720 (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2009)