Opinion
Civil Action No. 15-499 (RDM)
11-20-2015
JEROME BAY BROTHER JULIUS BROWN, Plaintiff, v. ANGELA CAESAR, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jerome Brown, proceeding pro se, filed the underlying complaint in this case on February 27, 2015, in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. See Dkt. 6-2. The Defendants removed to this Court on April 6, 2015. See Dkt. 1. The Court has already explained to Brown, who is proceeding pro se, that he must respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss to avoid having his case dismissed. See Dkt. 11. He has filed a document entitled "Order that the United States Motion Is FBI #1014, USMS, Granted $30,000.00." See Dkt. 17. Brown is now advised of the following:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a) requires any pleading, including a complaint, to contain a "short and plain statement" that explains why the Court has jurisdiction, a "short and plain statement" that explains why he, as the plaintiff, is entitled to relief, and a demand for relief. The complaint must be sufficient to "give the defendant[s] notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Brown should also know that the Court may dismiss the case if his complaint does not satisfy Rule 8(a). See Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-69 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (finding no abuse of discretion where a district court dismissed a claim without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)). The Court has reviewed Brown's Complaint, see Dkt. 6-2, and cannot understand how the Complaint explains why the Court has jurisdiction or why Brown is entitled to relief. Brown should therefore show cause on or before December 16, 2015, why his complaint should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8(a).
Furthermore, this Court's Local Rule 7(a) requires any motion filed with the Court to "include or be accompanied by a statement of the specific points of law and authority that support the motion, including where appropriate a concise statement of facts." The Court is unable to decipher either the facts or the law contained in Brown's "Order that the United States Motion Is FBI #1014, USMS, Granted $30,000.00," Dkt. 17. Brown should thus show cause on or before December 16, 2015, why this Court should not strike that motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 7(a).
Finally, the Court also notes that Brown has not yet opposed the Defendant's motion to dismiss, see Dkt. 9, unless he intends for his "Order that the United States Motion Is FBI #1014, USMS, Granted $30,000.00" to serve that purpose. As the Court has previously explained, failure to respond may result in the Court granting the Defendants' motions and dismissing Brown's complaint. See Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Brown should thus file an opposition to the Defendant's motion to dismiss on or before December 16, 2015.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Brown show cause on or before December 16, 2015, why his complaint should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8(a). It is further ORDERED that Brown show cause on or before December 16, 2015, why this Court should not strike his motion for "Order that the United States Motion is FBI #1014, USMS, Granted $30,000.00" for failure to comply with Local Rule 7(a). It is further ORDERED that Brown should file an opposition to the Defendant's motion to dismiss on or before December 16, 2015.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Randolph D. Moss
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
United States District Judge
Date: November 20, 2015