# Norman v. Aston Judiciary Square

> District Court, District of Columbia · August 26, 2011

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2663808

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** August 26, 2011
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Richard J. Leon
- **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/2663808

## Opinion text

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT am AuG 2 6 20"
FoR THE Drsri<icr oF CoLUMBIA inii‘iiili¢i:c Eza'¢':'§i‘.l°,.l§l',

)

Dawn Norman, )
)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No.

)

Aston Judiciary Square et al., )
)

Defendant. )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff s 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. S(a); see Ashcroft v. ]qbal, l29 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Cz`ralsky 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. Calz`j"ano, 75
F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977).

Plaintiff, a resident of Richmond, Virginia, sues two defendants in Washington D.C., one

in Richmond, Virginia, and another in New York, New York. See Compl. Caption. She seeks
damages exceeding $121 million "for withholding official documentation and trespassing - out
of warrent [sic] - illegal entry on property . . . ." Compl. at l. The cryptic complaint fails to
provide any notice of a claim or a basis for federal court jurisdiction A separate Order of

dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Q%-

g united stat@?nfstri¢r Judg@
Date: August , 2011

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2663808. Public record. Not legal advice.