Case law

Ciacci v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 27, 2012

District and MICHAEL CIACCI ) Bankruptcy Courts ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. § civil A¢rion NO. [2_- 2 O U.S. … Brown v. Calzfano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). As drafted, plaintiffs pleading fails to accomplish even these minimal goals. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed.

Daniel v. Fulwood

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2012

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). … P. 8 are not entitled to discovery); United States v. Marshall, 526 F.2d 1349, 1355 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied sub nom. Marshall v.

Lopez v. Rodriquez

500 F. Supp. 79 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 1980

Marshall v. … Brennan v.

Wolcott v. Ginsburg

697 F. Supp. 540 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 23, 1988

Winchester Drive-In Theatre, Inc. v. Warner Bros. Picture Distrib. Corp., 358 F.2d 432 , 436 (9th Cir.1966); Bellefonte Re Ins. Co. v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 757 F.2d 523, 529 (2d Cir.1985). … DeMontmorin v. DuPont, 484 A.2d 582, 585 (D.C.1984); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 764 F.2d 876, 882 (D.C.Cir.1985); Blair v. Prudential Insurance Co., 472 F.2d 1356, 1359 (D.C.Cir.1972).

Arnold v. White House

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 17, 2025

Jiggetts v. District of Columbia, 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. District of Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017) (quoting T.M. v. District of Columbia, 961 F. … See Brown v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 164 F. Supp. 3d 33, 35 (D.D.C. 2016). The court will, however, grant Ms. Arnold leave to file an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8 within thirty days.

Grant v. Department of Treasury

272 F. Supp. 3d 182 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2017

Id.; see also Nyunt v. Chairman, Broadcasting Board of Governors, 589 F.3d 445, 447 (D.C. … Grant v.

Graham v. Lavoy

District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 2012

P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661,668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).  Plaintiff purports to be a resident ofNew York, New York.

MARIRIO v. Dickinson

56 F. Supp. 2d 74 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 13, 1999

See Boyden v. Commissioner of Patents, 441 F.2d at 1043 . Before plaintiff may appeal either to the Board or to this Court, he first must provide the PTO with a complete patent application and be denied a patent. … See 35 U.S.C. § 145 ; see also Boyden v. Commissioner of Patents, 441 F.2d at 1043 ; DeSeversky v. Brenner, 424 F.2d 857, 859 (D.C.Cir.1969).

Garrow v. Phillips

664 F. Supp. 2 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 1987

In support of this claim, plaintiff relies upon the Supreme Court’s opinion in Cleveland Board of Education v. … To the contrary, the Loudermill Court reaffirmed the decision in Board of Regents v.

Norman v. Aston Judiciary Square

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2011

S(a); see Ashcroft v. ]qbal, l29 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Cz`ralsky v. CIA. 355 F.3d 66l, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). … Brown v. Calz`j"ano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977). Plaintiff, a resident of Richmond, Virginia, sues two defendants in Washington D.C., one in Richmond, Virginia, and another in New York, New York. See Compl.

Dewitt v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 27, 2023

Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Harris v. District of Columbia

652 F. Supp. 154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 22, 1986

See also Bennett v. … Vinson v. Taylor, 753 F.2d 141 , 144 n. 20 (D.C.Cir.1985) (citing Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, 455 U.S. 385, 392-398 , 102 S.Ct. 1127, 1131-35 , 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982); DeMedina v.

BAPTIST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM v. Sebelius

646 F. Supp. 2d 28 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 18, 2009

BRMC timely appealed the intermediary’s determination to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (“Board”). 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a); (A.R. at 3.) … Quigley v. Giblin, 569 F.3d 449, 453 (D.C.Cir.2009); Mellen v. Bunting, 327 F.3d 355, 363 (4th Cir.2003).

National Coalition for Students With Disabilities v. Miller

298 F. Supp. 2d 16 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 30, 2002

Ali v. … Board of Elections The plaintiffs cannot bring an action unless they meet the “case or controversy” requirements imposed by Article III of the Constitution. Worth v.

Burley v. United States Government

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 2011

P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). … Brown v.

Blanco v. Wormuth

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 2024

For instance, in Lynom v. … the Board for reconsideration. 222 F.

Westcott v. McHugh

39 F. Supp. 3d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 16, 2014

Following the Command’s denial of his request, the plaintiff appealed the decision to the Department of the Army Privacy Review Board (“Privacy Review Board”), which also denied his appeal. … v. Dep’t of Army, 482 F.

Jackson v. Olexa

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 2023

See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). … See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). The standard also assists the court in determining whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Burley v. United States Government

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 2011

S(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Plaintiff, a resident of Kingston, New York, sues the United States, President Barack Obama "and administration," and the State of New Jersey.

Weekes v. Washington Dc Police

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 1, 2013

See Haz`nes v. Kerrzer, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tz`sch, 656 F. Supp. 23 7, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). … Brown v. Calzfano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). As drafted, plaintiff s pleading fails to accomplish even these minimal goals.