Opinion

Brown v. Howard County Police Department

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Jul 29, 2009
Status
Published
On the bench
Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.5%

The opinion

tl>

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _]UL 2 9 2009

Clerk, U.S. District and

Jerome Julius Brown , ) B°nkruptcy courts

Plaintiff, l

v. l civil Action No. 1499

H0ward County Police Dep’t et al., §

Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint and an application to proceed in forma

pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the

complaint.

Plaintiff, who lists a Maryland address on the complaint, has filed a complaint against a

defendants with Maryland addresses. The complaint appears to consist of only one page, with a

more than twenty pages of attachments, which appear to relate to a civil action, Brown v. Nolan,

Civil Action No. 08-2969 (WDQ) that plaintiff filed in the United States District Court for the

District of Maryland in 2008. The complaint does indicate how or if the attachments are related

to this complaint While the first line of the complaint mentions "the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983," it alleges no wrong-doing by the named defendants who are not mentioned in the

complaint except in the caption. Compl. at l. The complaint does not allege facts that suggest

any cause of action. Ia’. While the complaint mentions a fine of $10,000 in relation to "both

defendants," that reference is made in relation to a criminal provision, 18 U.S.C. § lO0l. Id.

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short

and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment

for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. S(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of

Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a

responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine of res

judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977).

As drafted, the Complaint fails to comply with Rule S(a). Neither the defendants nor the

Court can determine the basis of this Court’s jurisdiction, the nature of plaintiffs claim, or the

relief plaintiff seeks. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice.

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: 7 /5’~ y /[)7 Unite{d States District Judge

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.