Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moore v. Justice Dep't.

United States District Court, District of Columbia

August 12, 2014

Surf Moore, Plaintiff,
v.
Justice Dep't. et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BERYL A. HOWELL, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se Complaint and application 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 of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pro se 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (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).

Once again, plaintiff, a resident of Jackson, Mississippi, purports to sue the United States Department of Justice and a construction company in Chicago, Illinois. See Compl. Caption. He seeks money damages exceeding $50 million. See Compl. at 40-41. Plaintiff claims that defendants have conspired to violate certain constitutional provisions and federal law, see id., at 2, 13-15, but the complaint consists of recitations of constitutional amendments and federal statutes and incoherent statements. Plaintiff has alleged no facts to provide the defendants with adequate notice of a claim. Hence, this case, too, will be dismissed. See Moore v. Justice Dep't, No. 14-1218 (UNA) (D.D.C. Jul. 18, 2014) (same); Moore v. U.S. Justice Dep't, No. 14-0909 (UNA) (D.D.C. May 28, 2014) (same); Moore v. Justice Dep't, No. 14-0624 (UNA) (D.D.C. Apr. 16, 2014) (same); Moore v. Justice Dep't, No. 14-0313 (UNA) (D.D.C. Feb. 26, 2014) (same).[1] A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.