Opinion

Malone v. District Hospital Partners, L.P.

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Aug 18, 2016
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 2.7%

The opinion

¢»/»v.'exwmc~\w.=w.~.,»~¢t» .»~>

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBlA

Joan F.M. Malone, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case: 1:16-cv-O1685

V_ ) Assigned To : Unassigned

) Assign_ Date : 8/18/2016

District Hospital Partners, L.P., d/b/a ) D@Scriptlon`- pro 39 Gen~ ClVll (F D€Ck))

George Washington )

University Hospital et al. )

)

Defendants. )

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 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) 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 Ashcrofz‘ v, Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); €iralsky 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 res judicata applies. Brown v. Calzfano, 75

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

»z¢z»;p;w$’»\+~»a»»¢»,.~¢....».» l ,~ w _,~t~~m~»-¢¢“ wz~»..¢»-~»»..<.\.~_»a,\m a ,»-,.»~»\M,». . a .r. ~ < ~ ~..\ ,… …`-‘._4_\,,,,., f

Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, introduces this lawsuit as "an action of gross

medical [negligence]." Compl. at l. The complaint does not include any cogent allegations

against the named defendants to provide notice of a claim, nor is the basis of federal court

jurisdiction clear. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed without prejudice A separate order

accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: August \X ,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.