PABLO CHAVEZ v. RUDES (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Juan PABLO CHAVEZ, doing business as Fine Arts Education Reform, Appellant v. RUDES, et al., Appellees

No. 18-7183

Decided: June 05, 2019

BEFORE: Tatel and Millett, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge Juan Pablo Chavez, Pro Se

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's order, filed August 16, 2018, be affirmed. The district court properly construed appellant's initial pleading as a complaint commencing a new civil action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. The district court then properly dismissed appellant's complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the ․ claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The dismissal without prejudice allows appellant to file a new complaint that complies with Rule 8(a).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam