Hudson v. Belcher

Full title: Cheryl D. Hudson (Lott), Plaintiff, v. Herbert Belcher, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Aug 10, 2009

Civil Action No. 09 1661 (D.D.C. Aug. 10, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 09 1661.

August 10, 2009

MEMORANDUM OPINION

REGGIE WALTON, District Judge

The plaintiff has filed a 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.

Plaintiff, who lists a Maryland address on the complaint, has filed a complaint against a defendant with a Maryland address. The very short one-page complaint merely asserts in a conclusory manner that the plaintiff is a repeated victim of "bank fraud, postal mail fraud, telecommunications fraud, credit card fraud, [and] bank card fraud," and that the defendant "continuouls interferes with my business endeavors by attributing to ID fraud." Plaintiff is "requesting full reimbursement of all associated fees, fines and costs as associated therein, as a direct result of his fraudulent acts." The complaint alleges no facts stating what actions the defendant took that caused injury to the plaintiff. The complaint also does not allege facts that suggest federal jurisdiction.

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). In addition, the complaint must allege facts sufficient to permit the court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the case.

As drafted, the Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a). The Court cannot, nor will the defendant be able to, determine the basis of this Court's jurisdiction, the facts on which the plaintiffs claims rest, or the relief plaintiff seeks. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice.

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.