Case law

Weekes v. Whole Foods Market

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. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 23 7, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). … Brown v. Calzfarzo, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977). As drafted, plaintiff s pleading fails to accomplish even these minimal goals.

United States v. Zabavsky

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 5, 2024

Hylton-Brown’s death. … United States v.

Abou-Hussein v. Mabus

953 F. Supp. 2d 251 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 2013

notice of the final order or decision of the Board.” § 7703(b)(1)(A). … Konarski v. Brown, No. 03-5340, 2004 WL 1249346, at *1 (D.C. Cir. June 7, 2004) (per curiam) (citation omitted). Any waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal. United States v.

Ross v. Walton

668 F. Supp. 2d 32 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 2009

See Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002). Heightened Pleading Requirements under the PSLRA. … See Lormand v. U.S.

United States v. Mosquera-Murillo

172 F. Supp. 3d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2016

United States v. … In United States v.

Bey v. State of Minnesota

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2012

Brown v. Calzfano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). These principles apply equally to a petition for a writ of mandamus. … @3’\»®4°.»~ V_ United/States District Judge DATE; )\/.> v. f/ w

Cosby v. Dc Housing Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2011

See Haz`nes 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). … Brown v. Calz:fano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). lt appears that there is a dispute between plaintiff and her landlord regarding the payment of rent.

Bowden v. Clough

658 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2009

.”); see also Brown v. … See Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 835 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976); Jarrell v. U.S.

Pinson v. U.S. Department of Justice

177 F. Supp. 3d 474 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 8, 2016

(quoting Young v. Lane, 922 F.2d 370, 373 (7th Cir.1991)). Like Mr. Pinson, in Brown v. … See Brown v. F.B.I, 793 F. Supp. 2d 368, 383 (D.D.C. 2011). Several weeks after filing his preliminary injunction motion, the plaintiff was transferred to a different prison. See id. at 372–73.

Eagle Trust Fund v. U.S. Postal Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2019

Based on inferences drawn from Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184 (1958), and Board of Governors of the Fed. Reserve System v. … DATE: February 4, 2019 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

Hickman v. Intel

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 14, 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.

Phillips v. Distict of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 16, 2011

S(a); see Ashcrofl‘ v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Cz`ralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). … Brown v. Calzfano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977). Plaintiff is a homeless individual suing the District of Columbia for $l billion.

Finch v. Gibson

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 7, 2011

P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Oralsky 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).

Borrell v. Naval Facilities Engineering Command

District Court, District of Columbia · May 11, 2020

of the [Board].” … But even the Board lacks jurisdiction over the military’s decision to grant, deny, or revoke a security clearance. “It should be obvious that no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Dep’t of the Navy v.

Chen v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 8, 2025

P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (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). Notably, “[a] confused and rambling narrative of charges and conclusions . . . does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort Myer Constr.

Neal v. District of Columbia

931 F. Supp. 16 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 16, 1996

Blango v. Barry, No. 95-7130, 1996 WL 310161 (D.C.Cir., May 9, 1996). Plaintiffs case is based squarely upon the LRAA, a regulation enacted by the Council of the District of Columbia. … Plaintiff specifically alleges violations of LRAA §§ 200.4, 201.7 see supra and 206.1 ("If, after a hearing, the Board determines that the resident should be placed in segregation the Board must prepare within three (3) working

In re Certain Carriers, Represented by the Eastern, Western & Southeastern Carriers' Conference Committees

247 F. Supp. 176 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 12, 1965

Whatever construction is placed upon the Award by the Arbitration Board is necessarily binding on this Court. The question presented on this motion has been submitted to the Arbitration Board. … Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry.

Durr v. United States America

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2025

Durr v. Dep’t of Army, No. 19- cv-1340 (Durr II). There, he sought to overturn a 2014 decision by the Army Board for Corrections of Military Records (ABCMR) denying his application for relief. See Durr II, Dkt. 1. … Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). Courts construe pro se complaints liberally, see Haines v.

Chen v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 8, 2025

P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (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). Notably, “[a] confused and rambling narrative of charges and conclusions . . . does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort Myer Constr.

Furtado Jr. v. Furtado Sr.

District Court, District of Columbia · May 13, 2026

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). … Id. at 3 (citing Brown v. WMATA, 164 F. Supp. 3d 33, 35 (D.D.C. 2016)).