Opinion

Nickerson-Malpher v. United States of America

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Apr 30, 2012
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.4%

The opinion

FILED

APR 3 0 2012

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT clerk u s D_ '

FC)R THE DISTRICT OF COLI)MBIA com tarihe’?f!é?$f§ §?'é'f,'»`.'.‘.'$§l'a

)

Margaret Kathleen Nickerson-Malpher, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No.

)

United States of America 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 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. S(a); see Ashcrofl v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2()09); Cl`ralsky 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. Calzfano, 75

F.R.D. 497, 493 (D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiff is a resident of Littleton, l\/Iassachusetts, suing the United States and the State of

Maine, but she has stated no facts from which a claim may be gleaned. The complaint is

captioned "Take J udicial Notice and Administrative Notice: In the Nature of a Writ of Error

Coram Nobis, and a Demand for Dismissal for Failure to State the Proper Jurisdiction and

Venue." lt consists mostly of incomprehensible and disjointed statements and a recital of various

federal laws. Plaintiff claims, inter alia, to be "placing a Demand for jurisdiction and venue

change under new discovery of information of fraud and failure of disclosure by the Court, the

Prosecutor & District attorney, and, therefore dismissal of charges, with prejudice, . . . because of

fraud placed upon the court." Compl. at 3. She does not identify the court in which such

"charges" were brought or state why this Court would have any authority to dismiss the charges.

The complaint simply fails to present any notice of a claim or a basis for federal court

jurisdiction. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

'¥L United States District Judge z

Date:April ,2012

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.