Opinion

Ciriello v. Executive Office of the President

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Nov 17, 2014
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge Rudolph Contreras
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 33.5%

The opinion

FILEIZ}

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV 1 7 201‘:

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Clerk, U.S. District and

Bankruptcy Courts

Mark S. Ciriello, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case: 1:14-cv-O1932

V_ ) ASSIgned To : Unassigned

) Assign. Date : 11/17/2014

Executive Office of the President, ) Descr'ptlon: Pro se Gen- ClV”

)

Defendant. )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s 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. 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 (DC. 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 resident of Waterbury, Connecticut, who has named the Executive Office of

the President as the sole defendant to this action. See Compl. Caption. The complaint consists

of a narrative about events that have nothing to do with the named defendant. Plaintiff indicates

that he is filing here because a judge in the District of Connecticut has “banned” him from filing

claims in that court absent his filing of “certain paper work[.]” Compl. at l. The instant

complaint and inexplicable attachments fail to provide any notice of a claim. A separate Order

of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

United tates District Judge

{R

Date: November ,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.