Moore v. Justice Department

fl, } i FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 1 2 201': FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clark, U.S. District 8: Bankruptcy Courts for the Dlstrfct of Columbia Surf Moore, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. /4o ) Justice Dep’t. at al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se Complaint and application to proceed infarma pauperis. The Court will grant the informa 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. 23 7, 239 (BBC. 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); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661 , 668~7l (DC. 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). Once again, plaintiff, a resident of Jackson, Mississippi, purports to sue the United States Department of Justice and a construction company in Chicago, Illinois. See Compl. Caption. He seeks money damages exceeding $50 million. See Compl. at 40-41. Plaintiff claims that defendants have conspired to violate certain constitutional provisions and federal law, see id., at 2, 13-15, but the complaint consists of recitations of constitutional amendments and federal statutes and incoherent statements. Plaintiff has alleged no facts to provide the defendants with adequate notice of a claim. Hence, this case, too, will be dismissed. See Moore v. Justice Dep ’t, No. 14-1218 (UNA) (D.D.C. Jul. 18,2014) (same); Moore v. US. Justice Dep ’t, No. 14—0909. (UNA) (D.D.C. May 28, 2014) (same); Moore v. Justice Dep 't, No. 14-0624 (UNA) (D.D.C. Apr. 16, 2014) (same); Moore v. Justice Dep 't, No. 14-0313 (UNA) (D.D.C. Feb. 26, 2014) (same).1 A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. United Stat 8 District Judge fr, Date: August ,2014 ‘ Plaintiff is warned that his persistence in submitting repetitive lawsuits for filing may result ultimately in the Court enjoining him from the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in future actions. See Hurt v. Social Security Admin, 544 F.3d 308, 310 (DC. Cir. 2008) (approving the denial of an abusive litigant’s “IFP status prospectively”); Butler v. Dep’t of Justice, 492 F.3d 440, 446 (DC. Cir. 2007) (“Butler may continue to engage in this pastime [of filing repetitive actions] if he wishes, but if he chooses to do so here, it will have to be on his own dime”); see also Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 208 F.3d 1032, 1036 (DC. Cir. 2000) (“Leave to file a claim informa pauperis has always been a matter of grace, a privilege granted in the court's discretion . . ., and denied in the court's discretion when that privilege has been abused by filing claims of appeals that are frivolous or otherwise not taken in good faith”) (citations omitted).