# Newcomer v. Corporate America

> District Court, District of Columbia · June 22, 2012

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2662259

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** June 22, 2012
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Ellen S. Huvelle
- **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/2662259

## Opinion text

2 2 2§‘!2
UNITED sTATEs DISTRICT CoURr

FoR THE Disri<icr oF CoLLJMBIA mt»§`_<§ §`:..£Z,»ij:“§§§§§i',".§

)
Thomas Andrew Newcomer et al., )
)
Plaintiff, )

) ~ ¢ ¢

v. ) C1v11 Action No.

)
Corporate America d/b/a the United States, )
)
Defendant. )
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of two plaintiffs’ pro se complaint
and applications for leave to proceed informal pauperis. The Court will grant the z'nforrna
pauperis applications 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.
Pr0 se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. jarrell v. Tz`sch,

656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule S(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. S(a); see Ashcrofl v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (20()9); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355
F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 20()4). 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. Calz_'f'czno, 75

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

Two residents listing their address as a residence in "District of Columbia, l\/laryland,"
Compl. Caption, purport to sue the United States and/or corporate America. The complaint,
consisting of various unexplained attachments, provides no notice of a claim and a basis for
exercising federal court jurisdiction A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

United States District Judge

Date: June QL;, 2012

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2662259. Public record. Not legal advice.