# Wright v. U.S. Labor workforce/national Security

> District Court, District of Columbia · January 30, 2014

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2659558

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** January 30, 2014
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Reggie B. Walton
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2659558

## Opinion text

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AN 3 o

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Clerk, U.S. Dlstrlct & Bankruptcy

Glenn Rodney wright ) Courts for the Distr|ct of columbia

Plaintiff, §
v. i civil A¢ii<m N@. /§¢ - /»j¢ 7

U.S. Labor Workforce/ §

National Security et al., )
Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM OPlNION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the plaintiff s pro se complaint and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperz`s. 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) ofthe 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, S(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. Calq`fano, 75

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

The plaintiff is a resident of Memphis, Tennessee. The complaint consists of disjointed
statements and the named defendants do not appear to be entities capable of being sued. Even if
the defendants are subject to a lawsuit, the plaintiff s statements provide no logical link to the

defendants and, therefore, fail to provide them adequate notice of a claim. Hence, this case will

Unité/d/States District Judge

be dismissed.l

Dai@; January /o’, 2014

' A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2659558. Public record. Not legal advice.