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.

Miller v. Supreme Court of United States

United States District Court, District of Columbia

June 9, 2015

JERMAINE TERRELL MILLER, Plaintiff,
v.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District Judge.

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at a correctional facility in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, alleges that defendants have violated rights protected under the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. See Compl. ¶¶ 3, 6. He claims to have sent subpoenas to six of the defendants to ask "[f]or their aid in [his] legal defense to [his] innocence, " yet none of these defendants "contacted [him] to confirm their stance with their summoning." Id. ¶ 4. He further alleges that he received "a Writ of Certiorari package" in response to the "formal letter [he sent] to the U.S. Supreme Court... [e]xplaining [his] legal situation in full detail, " instead of the necessary "forms to commence [a] Civil Action against the six rogue agencies, " id. ¶ 5, he had requested. Generally, he contends that "the seven defendants are guilty of wrongdoing by not answering a subpoena, " id. ¶ 6, and for relief from "the cruel injustive [sic] denials of government and the mental anguish [he] endured, " plaintiff demands an "initial lump sum of 8 million dollars up front from each of the defendant" and other relief, id. ¶ 7.

The Court has reviewed 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 claims 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).

Plaintiff's complaint neither states the grounds upon which this court's jurisdiction depends nor a statement of a cognizable claim showing his entitlement to relief. As drafted, the complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a). The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint. An Order 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.