Opinion

['Patrick-Bey v. U.S. Government']

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Mar 20, 2014
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge Richard J. Leon
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.2%

The opinion

FILED

¥§§TF§ES§§`SY§§Y§S§§§;%§§§’}§‘T§ G'e~<» 315 l»»§-ii§'§"'

Courts for the Dlstrict afa

William Patrick-Bey, )

Plaintiff, §

v. § Civil Action N0. /*§£"" ‘§L

U.S. Government, §

Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se Complaint

application 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 "(l) 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 66l, 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. l977).

Plaintiff, a resident of Arlington, Virginia, sues the "U.S. Government," but he has made

no factual allegations against the United States. See Compl. at 1 ("Catholic Charities, a

subsidiary of Hillcrest Children and Family Center and also the phyc [sic] ward at Southeast

Community Hospital have all attempt[ed] to assault me by way of poison medication."). Since

the complaint provides no notice of a claim against the only named defendant, it will be

dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

United States District Judge

Date: March

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.