Court Opinion

ID: 4026403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-08-18 21:01:56.336927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:33:42.797341
License: Public Domain

¢»/»v.'exwmc~\w.=w.~.,»~¢t» .»~>

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBlA

Joan F.M. Malone, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case: 1:16-cv-O1685
V_ ) Assigned To : Unassigned
) Assign_ Date : 8/18/2016
District Hospital Partners, L.P., d/b/a ) D@Scriptlon`- pro 39 Gen~ ClVll (F D€Ck))
George Washington )
University Hospital et al. )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION

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 S(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tz`sch,
656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule S(a) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
complaints to contain "(l) 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. S(a); see Ashcrofz‘ v, Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); €iralsky 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. Calzfano, 75
F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

»z¢z»;p;w$’»\+~»a»»¢»,.~¢....».» l ,~ w _,~t~~m~»-¢¢“ wz~»..¢»-~»»..<.\.~_»a,\m a ,»-,.»~»\M,». . a .r. ~ < ~ ~..\ ,… …`-‘._4_\,,,,., f

Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, introduces this lawsuit as "an action of gross
medical [negligence]." Compl. at l. The complaint does not include any cogent allegations
against the named defendants to provide notice of a claim, nor is the basis of federal court
jurisdiction clear. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed without prejudice A separate order

accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: August \X ,2016