Opinion

Brosten v. Library of Congress

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Mar 20, 2014
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge Ellen S. Huvelle
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.6%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

§§,&§, S§str§et a

erisa res sr

Eric Brosten, )

Plaintiff, §

v. § Civil Action No. - §

Library of Congress, §

Defendant. §

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

application 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 S(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 S(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, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Cz'ralsky v. CIA, 355

F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair

l 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. Calz`fano, 75

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

Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident suing the Library of Congress for allegedly

limiting his access presumably to the building. See Compl. at 2. He seeks $50 million in

damages and equitable relief. Ia’. at 3. The complaint begins with incoherent statements and

accusations of a "criminal conspercy [sic]" between the Library of Congress police force and

"Hillary Clinton." Ia’. at l. Plaintiff then mentions "unlawful discriminatory practice" but does

not provide any discernible facts supporting a basis for federal court jurisdiction. Hence, this

case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/C/ rios § where

United States District Judge

Date: February‘~~'Q , 2014

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.