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.

Quinn v. Dep't of Human Services

United States District Court, District of Columbia

December 19, 2014

ANDREW QUINN, Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant

ANDREW QUINN, Plaintiff, Pro se, Washington, DC.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge.

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint.

The Court has reviewed the plaintiff's complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (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). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court's jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

The Court has read the complaint carefully, and identifies no cognizable legal claim. Plaintiff mentions that he had been denied medical care while he was living in Kansas, yet he fails to explain the relevance of these events to this lawsuit. He alleges that he has been denied medical care in the District of Columbia, but his pleading offers no information as to the care he requires, the identities of the doctors who allegedly declined to treat him, or the facilities where he has sought care. And plaintiff demands no particular relief. As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a) and, accordingly, it will be dismissed. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DISMISSAL ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby

ORDERED that the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint and this civil action are DISMISSED without prejudice.

This is a final appealable Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).

SO ORDERED.


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.