Opinion

Brown v. Mid-Atlantic Program Ser. Center

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Nov 30, 2009
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge Ricardo M. Urbina
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.5%

The opinion

FILED

NOV 3 0 2009

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT clerk U s D_ t _ t d

, . . is rlc an

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Bankruptcy courts

)

Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) \

v. ) CivilAction N0.

)

Mid-At1antic Program Ser. Center, 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. Tz`sch,

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. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralsky 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. Br0wrz v. Calzfano, 75

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

Plaintiff, a resident of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, sues what appears to be a regional

office of the Social Security Administration in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, but for what acts or

omissions is not at all clear. The complaint allegations are so incomprehensible as to fail to

provide any notice of a claim and the basis of federal court jurisdiction. As previously advised,

see Brown v. M€Carthy, Civ. Action N0. 09-2074 (D.D.C. Nov. 4, 2009), plaintiff is warned that

his persistence in filing such actions will result in this Court restricting his ability to proceed in

forma pauperis A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/§~»+» -~V~w~>

Unifed Stja't'es District Judge

Date: November M_, 2009

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.