Idrogo v. Foxx, Civil Action No. 13–1662
| Decision Date | 25 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 13–1662 |
| Parties | Michael Idrogo, Plaintiff, v. Anthony Foxx, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael Idrogo, San Antonio, TX, pro se.
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); seeAshcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (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 Texas resident. He purports to sue U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, certain members of Congress, and other individuals. See Compl. Caption. The cryptic statements comprising the complaint provide no notice of claim or a basis for federal court jurisdiction and, thus, fail to comply with Rule 8(a). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atchison v. U.S. Dist. Courts, Civil Action No.: 14-2045 (RC)
...S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) ). But even pro se litigants "must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Idrogo v. Foxx , 990 F.Supp.2d 5, 6 (D.D.C.2013) (citing Jarrell v. Tisch , 656 F.Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C.1987) ).Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides for the di......
-
Byers v. U.S. Tax Court
...S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) ). But even pro se litigants "must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Idrogo v. Foxx , 990 F.Supp.2d 5, 6 (D.D.C. 2013) (citing Jarrell v. Tisch , 656 F.Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987) ). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a complaint ......
-
Saunders v. Davis
...v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). But even pro se litigants "must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Idrogo v. Foxx, 990 F. Supp. 2d 5, 6 (D.D.C. 2013) (citing Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides for th......
-
Koch v. Clayton, Case No. 12-cv-01934 (APM)
...adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which include limited periods for discovery and strict deadlines. See Idrogo v. Foxx, 990 F. Supp. 2d 5, 6 (D.D.C. 2013). The court provided many extensions of time to Plaintiff in light of his disabilities and other obligations. See Mem. Op.,......