# Ruther v. Tipsurd

> District Court, District of Columbia · October 24, 2017

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4214253

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** October 24, 2017
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Amit P. Mehta
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4214253

## Opinion text

».W»,,.»m,<¢q,,w-`WWM. M., . ,

FILED
octztzoiz

UNI D T l T T
TE STATES DIS RC COUR C|erk, U.S.Distr|ct&Bankruptcy

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA courts forms msmcrot co\umv\a

L. Ruther, )
)

Plaintiff, )

)

v ) Civil Action No. l7-l686 (UNA)

)

)

l\/[ichael Tipsurd, )
)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUl\/I OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review ofplaintit`l`s pro se complaint and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis The Court will grant the informal pauperis
application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading
requirements of Rule S(a) of the Federal Rules ot` 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 8(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. 8(a); see Ashcr()ji v. ]q})al, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Cl`ralsky v. CIA, 355
F.3d 66l, 668-7l (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. Cali/ano, 75

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

w memm§a»,m» ~W z t

Plaintiff resides in l\/Ianassas, Virginia. He has filed a purported complaint against an
individual in West Virginia, mentioning fraud and contract. Beyond those words, the complaint
is incomprehensible and thus fails to provide any notice of a claim and the basis of federal court

jurisdiction A separate order of dismissal accompanies this l\/Iemorandum Opinion.

/§M '~t/:;
Wrict Judg@

Date: October 19, 2017

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4214253. Public record. Not legal advice.