Opinion

Bell v. Jw Marriott Hotel

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
May 6, 2009
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge John D. Bates
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.5%

The opinion

FILED

MAY - 6 2009

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NANCY MAYER WHITIINGTON. CLERK

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA U.S. DISTRICT COURT

KAREEMAH BELL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

Civil Action No.

U9 0828

JW MARRIOTT HOTEL, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review ofplaintiffs application to proceed in

forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the

complaint.

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that a complaint filed by a

pro se litigant is held to a less stringent standard than is applied to a formal pleading drafted by a

lawyer. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, 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 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. 8(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. 1977).

Plaintiff alleges that, on February 14, 2009, "security decided to bar [her] out of the JW

/JJ)

Marriot Hotel." Compl. at 1. The complaint sets forth neither a short and plain statement of this

court's jurisdiction, a short and plain statement showing plaintiffs entitlement to relief, nor a

demand for any particular relief. For these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed without

prejudice for its failure to comply with Rule 8(a).

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

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.