Case law

Buchanan v. 132nd District Court of Texas

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 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.

John L. Doyne Hospital v. Leavitt

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2009

On July 9, 2007, the CMS Administrator issued a notice declining to review the Board's decision, and hence, the Board decision became the Secretary's final decision. AR 1. … Joseph's Hosp. v.

Rich v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2019

Hensley v. United States, 292 F. Supp. 3d 399, 402 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Austin v. United States, 614 F. App’x 198, 200 (5th Cir. 2015)). … In Fail v. United States, the U.S.

W. E. B. DuBois Clubs v. Clark

285 F. Supp. 619 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 1968

under this Act shall have been instituted before the Board and a hearing under this Act shall have been conducted by the Board.” … California Water Service Co. v. City of Redding, 304 U.S. 252, 254-255 , 58 S.Ct. 865 , 82 L.Ed. 1323 (1938); Lion Manufacturing Corporation v. Kennedy, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 367 , 330 F.2d 833 (1964); O’Hair v.

Colbert v. U.S. Marshal's Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 29, 2010

See Haz'nes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 5 l9, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tz`sch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. l987). … Brown v. Calzfano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Battle Creek Health System v. Mercy Hospital Cadillac

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 31, 2023

(“PRRB,” or “the Board”). … Ctr. v. Bowen, 795 F.2d 139, 141 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Cape Cod Hospital v.

Tefera v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

19 F. Supp. 3d 212 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 2014

Just as in Tefera v. … See, e.g., McIntyre v. Fulwood, 892 F.

Lovitt v. District of Columbia

942 F. Supp. 618 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 1995

See Conner v. United States, 309 F.Supp. 446 (D.D.C.1970), aff'd, 461 F.2d 1259 (D.C.Cir.1972); Leary v. District of Columbia, 166 F.Supp. 542 (D.D.C.1958). The Court is not persuaded. … of Elections, Public Service Commission, Armory Board, Board of Education, the Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia, or the Convention Center Board of Directors to the Council pursuant to an act

Colbert v. U.S. District Court of Appeals

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 28, 2010

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). … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Shortley v. Northwestern Airlines

104 F. Supp. 152 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 17, 1952

Co. v. Cackette, 9 Cir., 8 F.2d 259 . … Co. v. Cackette, supra, was decided. It should be noted that, in the case of Gooch v. Oregon Short Line R. R.

Foster v. United States Bureau of Prisons

57 F. Supp. 3d 32 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 15, 2014

Parole Board; today, by contrast, the U.S. Parole Commission employs guidelines that were finalized in 2000 and involve a detailed point system. § Sellmon v. Reilly, 551 F. … Supp. 2d at 50 (discussing "totally unstructured character of the Board’s parole decisions prior to 1987").

Baz v. Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 11, 2019

Lujan v. … Co. v. EPA, 783 F.3d 1291, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (per curiam); Crete Carrier Corp. v. EPA, 363 F.3d 490, 493 (D.C. Cir. 2004); see also Texas v. EPA, 726 F.3d 180, 197–99 (D.C.

Baz v. Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 11, 2019

Lujan v. … Co. v. EPA, 783 F.3d 1291, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (per curiam); Crete Carrier Corp. v. EPA, 363 F.3d 490, 493 (D.C. Cir. 2004); see also Texas v. EPA, 726 F.3d 180, 197–99 (D.C.

Mohammed Bey v. Department of Human Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 20, 2012

See Haz`nes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 5l9, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tz`sch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). … Brown v. Calz`j"arzo, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977).

Smith-Thompson v. District of Columbia

657 F. Supp. 2d 123 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2009

Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C.Cir.2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . … Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 393 , 102 S.Ct. 1127 , 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982); see also Brown v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 8, 14 (D.C.Cir. 1985).

Dc Association of Chartered Public Schools v. District of Columbia

134 F. Supp. 3d 525 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 1, 2015

Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178, 1187 (10th Cir. 1999) (citing United States v. … Charter Sch. v.

Mutava v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 17, 2025

P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009). … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Anderson v. Local 201 Reinforcing Rodmen

886 F. Supp. 94 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 18, 1995

Brown University, 555 F.Supp. 880 (D.R.I.1983) (civil rights complaint without a minimally sufficient factual predicate cannot stand). … Brown, 466 U.S. 147 , 148 n. 1, 104 S.Ct. 1723 , 1723 n. 1, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984) (presuming, by analogy to Fed.R.Cxv.P. 6(e), that right-to-sue letter was received three days after issuance and mailing); and Pacheco v.

Smith v. Penndot

District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 2024

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). Here, as presented, neither the court nor the defendant can reasonably be expected to identify plaintiff’s intended claims.

Long v. Zark

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2010

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, a resident of Oxon Hill, Maryland, purports to sue the President of the American Bar Association but for what conduct is unknown.