# McKeeman v. United States

> District Court, District of Columbia · August 20, 2010

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2665437

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** August 20, 2010
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Gladys Kessler
- **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/2665437

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FILED
AUG 20 20m
) Clerk, U.S. District 3. Bankruptcy
Rita Morris McKeeman, ) Courts for the District of Columbia
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No.
)
United States, ) 10 1412
)
Defendant. )
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and

application for leave to proceed informa 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) ofthe 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 "( 1) 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); 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. Califano, 75

F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977).
Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident suing the United States. The complaint,

consisting mostly of disjointed phrases, fails to provide any notice of a claim. A separate Order

of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: August fL, 2010

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2665437. Public record. Not legal advice.