Opinion

Gamarra v. Lopez

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Jul 14, 2016
Status
Published
On the bench
Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 2.5%

The opinion

UNITED STATES [')ISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBlA

Jean Paul Gamarra, )

)

Plaintiff’ ) Case' 1'16-cv-O1456

) . . Assigned To : Unassigned

“ ) CW“ Assign. pate ~ 7/14/2016

) _ _ _ ' _ .

Kenneth E' Lopez, ) Descr\pt\on_ Pro Se Gen. Clvl| (F Deck)

)

Defendantst_ )

. LF

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint and

application for leave to proceed in forma p____ctuperis.__ _~»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. Tisch,

656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 198'7). Rule S(a) ofthe 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); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355

F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. 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`rei§‘ji¢dicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75

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

Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident He sues the Director of Security and

Emergency Preparedness for the Library of Congress. Plaintiff attaches the Director’s May 27,

2016 letter barring him for six months from the Library of Congress’ buildings and grounds due

to his disruptive behavior about which he was previously warned, and the Director’s June 15,

2016 letter denying plaintiff s request for reconsideration of that decision. The purported

complaint, however, consists of aimless words and phrases that fail to provide any notice of a

claim and the basis of federal court jurisdiction. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed. A

separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

c ; a§"l District Judge

Date: July %2016

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.