Court Opinion

ID: 9903745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 16:02:10.900072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:24.474903
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                      ____________
No. 23-5177                                                 September Term, 2023
                                                                       1:23-cv-02047-UNA
                                                       Filed On: November 27, 2023
Gregory Joseph Podlucky and Karla Sue
Podlucky,

              Appellants

       v.

United States of America,

              Appellee

            ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

       BEFORE:       Henderson, Pillard, and Pan, Circuit Judges

                                     JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellants. 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 July 26, 2023 be
affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint
without prejudice for failure to comply with the pleading standards of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d
661, 669-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Additionally, the district court correctly concluded that
venue was improper in the District of Columbia. See 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b) (venue for
tort claims against the United States is proper “only in the judicial district where the
plaintiff resides or wherein the act or omission complained of occurred”).
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-5177                                                September Term, 2023

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.

                                       Per Curiam

                                                         FOR THE COURT:
                                                         Mark J. Langer, Clerk

                                                 BY:     /s/
                                                         Daniel J. Reidy
                                                         Deputy Clerk

                                          Page 2