FREEMAN v. WALMART STORES
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 7/11/2011. (ls, )
FILED
JUL 12 2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Sallijo Freeman,
Plaintiff,
v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No.
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Courts for the District of Columbia
11 1259
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff s application for a temporary
restraining order ("TRO") or a preliminary injunction ("PI"), which is accompanied by her
complaint and application for leave to proceed informa pauperis. The Court will grant the in
forma pauperis application, deny the TRO/PI motion, 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); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (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
I
~
(
--------
-------------
-------------
defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75
F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).
Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, sues Wal-Mart Stores. She lists her allegations
as "Violation ofthe American with Disabilities Act" and "Breach of Agreement," CompI. at L
but she has stated no supporting facts and, thus, has failed to provide any notice of a claim.
Plaintiff seeks permission to file an amended complaint, but she does not explain why she
submitted a wholly deficient complaint in the first place. Furthermore, plaintiff states no basis
for issuing a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction "to enjoin the defendant
from the destruction of documents pertaining to" what appears to be her employment application.
TRO Mot. at 1. Hence, the Court will dismiss the instant action without prejudice to plaintiff
refiling a complaint that complies with Rule 8. A
sep'~~ate
Order
Memorandum Opinion.
~f dismi-ssal~ompanies
I
-
/
I/
~
/ ,- '-Of
/~
"
/
\
Date: July
Ji-,
)
United States Distric Judge
2011
2
this
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?