Opinion

Hickman v. Intel

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Feb 14, 2011
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

FEB l ll ZUll

UNITED STATES DlSTRlCT CGURT C|BIK, U.S. DlSUict & Bankfuptcy

FGR THE DISTRICT OF CGLUMBIA COUIfS f0l’ the DlSUlCf Df columbia

Derian Douglas Hickman,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. / / y 3

INTEL 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.

Pr0 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralsky 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. Califarzo, 75

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

\\_\\

Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, sues INTEL, Cisco Systems, Microsoft and Dell

for "return of buildings and equipment [and] any revenue due including patent, trademark and

copyright use fees . . . ." Compl. at l. He seeks $100 million. Plaintiff does not state any facts

implicating the named defendants in any wrongdoing and, thus, fails to provide any notice of a

claim. Hence, the complaint will be dismissed A separate Grder accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

3

d United States Dist'rict Judge l

Date:February ['A" ,2()11

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.