# Ruther v. Rust

> District Court, District of Columbia · October 31, 2017

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4216285

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** October 31, 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/4216285

## Opinion text

~M,¢W,¢wkw»~ s., _~y t a ¢ t …~< 4 …-> .,W- m~~,»x. ..

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

L. Ruther, )
)

Plaintiff, )

)

v ) Civil Action No. 17-1703 (UNA)

)

)

Edward D. Rust, Jr. et al., )
)

Defendants. )

l\/lEl\/IORANDUl\/I OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and
application for leave to proceed informal pauperis The Court will grant the informa pauperis
application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading
requirements ofRule S(a) of the F ederal 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 8(a) of the 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 Ashcroj} v. ]qbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Cz`ralsky v. CIA, 355
F.3d 66l, 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 resjua’icam applies Brown v. Cali`fano, 75

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

M~.,..yw¢\a;n,..t,i, i

at a.,»,<,,»_‘a< »»»,v.»¢ w, ma \ n _ ,X

Plaintiff resides in Manassas, Virginia. He has filed a purported complaint against two
individuals for conduct unknown The cryptically worded 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\/[emorandum Opinion.

way

Date: October \9 ,2017 Unit'edS es DistrictJudge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4216285. Public record. Not legal advice.