Court Opinion

ID: 8443916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-04 20:07:00.028562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:48:52.050382
License: Public Domain

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed December 23, 2011, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to reinstate appellant’s civil action, because the amended complaint, like the original complaint, did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C.Cir.2004). Rule 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). The dismissal without prejudice allows appellant to file a new complaint that meets these requirements. See Ciralsky, 355 F.3d at 671.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.