Graham v. Lavoy ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                               FILED
    MAY 3 1 2012
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA                              Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
    Courts for the District of Columbia
    )
    Ronald Graham,                                )
    )
    Plaintiff,                             )
    )
    v.                             )        Civil Action No.      12 0874
    )
    Donald J. Lavoy et al.,                       )
    )
    Defendants.                            )
    )
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and
    application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis
    application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading
    requirements ofRule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
    Prose litigants 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
    complaints to contain "( 1) 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 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
    129 S.Ct. 1937
    , 1950 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 
    355 F.3d 661
    ,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 res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 
    75 F.R.D. 497
    , 498 (D.D.C. 1977).
    Plaintiff purports to be a resident ofNew York, New York. He is suing an official of the
    United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") and the agency for $200
    million in compensatory damages and $175 million in punitive damages. Compl. at 5. The
    complaint's allegations are mostly incomprehensible, but it appears from the attachments that
    plaintiff is complaining about the processing of his application for public housing assistance by
    New York officials. Plaintiff has stated no facts to support a claim against the named defendants.
    A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
    ,, fit                         United States District Judge
    Date: May _ _ , 2012
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2012-0874

Judges: Judge Richard W. Roberts

Filed Date: 5/31/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014