# Bey v. State of Minnesota > District Court, District of Columbia · November 21, 2012 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2661496 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia - **Decided:** November 21, 2012 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Judge John D. Bates - **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/2661496 ## Opinion text FILED UNITED sTATEs Dls"rizlc'r coURT NOV 2 1 2012 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of columbia Marlon Terrell Pratt Bey, § Plaintiff, § v. § Civil Action No. State of Minnesota et al. , § Defendants. § ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs 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 S(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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralslcy 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, a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota, sues the State of Minnesota, high-level Minnesota offrcials, and a Minnesota state judge, for what appears to be prosecutions brought against plaintiff. The complaint is incoherent and, thus, provides no notice of a claim. Furtherrnore, the complaint states no basis for federal court jurisdiction since the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution immunizes a state from suit in federal court, unless immunity is expressly waived.l See College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaia' Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 675-76 (1999); Keenan v. Washington Metropolz`tan Area Transit Authority, 643 F. Supp. 324, 327-28 (D.D.C. 1986) (citing cases). Hence, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. umw Uniidd States District Judge Date: November [\l) , 2012 ‘ The amendment provides in pertinent part: "[t]he judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State." U.S. Const. amend. XI. lt is established that this amendment applies equally to suits brought by citizens against their own states. See Ea'elman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 65l, 662-63 (1974); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. l, 13-15 (1890). 2 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2661496. Public record. Not legal advice.