Opinion

Ciriello v. Executive Office of the President

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Jan 15, 2015
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge Christopher R. Cooper
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 33.9%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARK S. CIRIELLO, )

Plaintiff,

Case: 1:15—cv-00065

Assigned To : Unassigned

Assign. Date : 1/15/2015

Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil

V.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and

his pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed

as frivolous.

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

pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted

by lawyers. See Haines V. Kerner, 404 US. 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).

The so-called complaint merely refers to its attachments — principally copies of letters

addressed to various federal government entities — and recounts plaintiff’s lack of success in

filing lawsuits against the State of Connecticut. The pleading neither alleges facts nor articulates

a cognizable legal claim. As drafted, the complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a), and it

therefore will be dismissed. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued

separately.

DATE: W I) 2” 5"

I United States District Ju ge

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.