Opinion

Gamarra v. Obama

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Aug 3, 2015
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge Beryl A. Howell
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 34.9%

The opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG _3

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Clerk, U.S. District and

“"kwptcy Courts

Jean Paul Gamarra, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case: 1:15—01247 (E Deck)

v. ) Assigned To : UnaSSIQned

) Assign. Date: 8/3/2015 ‘ .

BaraCk Hussein Obama’ ) Description: Pro Se Gen. CIVIl

)

Defendant. )

W

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. 23 7, 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, 556 US. 662, 678-79 (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 District of Columbia resident. He has named President Barack Obama as the

defendant. The document that plaintiff labels “Complaint” is incomprehensible, as are the

numerous pages of inexplicable attachments. In fact, the complaint is so lacking “an arguable

basis in law and fact” as to be frivolous. Brandon v. District of Columbia Bd. of Parole, 734

F.2d 56, 59 (DC. Cir. 1984). Hence this action, such as it is, will be dismissed with prejudice.

A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

,z/

Date: August 3 ,2015

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.