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.

Kinnell v. United States Judicial Courts In Kansas-Tenth Circuit

United States District Court, District of Columbia

April 1, 2015

ROLLY O'DELL KINNELL, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL COURTS IN KANSAS — TENTH CIRCUIT, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RANDOLPH D. MOSS, 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 (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 complaint neither includes a statement regarding the Court's jurisdiction nor identifies the contract underlying plaintiff's breach of contract claim. It is impossible to discern which defendant has taken which action that has caused plaintiff to suffer the injuries for which he demands damages of "Three-Hundered Million Dollars." Compl. ¶ 6. Review of the exhibits attached to the complaint shed no light on the nature of plaintiff's claims.

As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a) and therefore it will be dismissed. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.


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.