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.

Semiani v. USA

United States District Court, District of Columbia

May 1, 2015

Larbi Semiani, Plaintiff,
v.
USA, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AMIT P. MEHTA, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's 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 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, 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 is a resident of Algeria suing the United States. The instant complaint, like plaintiff's prior dismissed actions, fails to provide any notice of a claim and the basis of federal court jurisdiction. See Semiani v. USA, No. 14-0875, slip op. at 2 (D.D.C. May 19, 2014), aff'd sub nom Semiani v. United States, ___ Fed.Appx. ___, 2015 WL 1600339 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 4, 2015) (listing cases). To the extent that plaintiff has been "deprived of financial property... under the local California[] laws, " he should pursue that claim in the California courts. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. ยง 1391(b)(2) ("A civil action may be brought in... a judicial district in which.... a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated[.]"). 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.