Opinion

Parham v. Rettig

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Jul 13, 2020
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge James E. Boasberg
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 12.1%

The opinion

FILED

7/13/2020

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy

Court for the District of Columbia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TIMOTHY PARHAM, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 20-0468 (UNA)

)

CHARLES RETTIG. )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Court is mindful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent

standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404

U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the

grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader

seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice

to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to

prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies.

Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). It is apparent that plaintiff’s complaint

accomplishes none of these goals.

Plaintiff alleges that the Internal Revenue Service has “used the transmitting utility

TIMOTHY JAMES PARHAM™ and [his] copyrighted name Timothy Parham© without [his]

permission and without compensating [him] monetarily as outlined in private TRUST documents

attached to [his] revocable living trust and UCC-1 financial statement[.]” Am. Compl. at 1. He

purports to allow the Internal Revenue Service to “steal any amount as long as [it] agree[s] to

repay one-thousand (1000) times the amounts that [it has] deducted from [plaintiff’s] wages

retroactively.” Id. at 1-2. Missing from the complaint, as amended, is a statement of a

cognizable claim or a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. Because the complaint fails to comply

with Rule 8(a), the Court will dismiss it without prejudice.

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: July 13, 2020 /s/

JAMES E. BOASBERG

United States District Judge

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.