Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Idrogo v. Foxx
Citations: 990 F. Supp. 2d 5; 2013 WL 5796127; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154349Docket: Civil Action No. 2013-1662
Court: District Court, District of Columbia; October 25, 2013; Federal District Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed Michael Idrogo's pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted the application but dismissed the case due to the complaint's failure to meet the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Specifically, the complaint did not provide a clear statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction or a sufficient claim for relief, which is necessary for the defendants to understand the accusations and prepare their defense. The court emphasized that pro se litigants must adhere to these federal rules. Idrogo's complaint, which named U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and other individuals as defendants, was deemed cryptic and lacking in necessary detail. A separate order of dismissal was issued alongside this memorandum opinion.