MALLGREN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANTHONY BRIAN MALLGREN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02680 (UNA)
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and an
Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. 	The Court grants
Plaintiff’s IFP Application, and for the reasons discussed below, dismisses this matter pursuant to
Federal Rule 8(a).
Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues the United States and “United States
Justices.” See Compl. at 1. The Complaint is vague and quite difficult to follow. Plaintiff appears
to challenge an unidentified “Rule Suggestion” that he contends “was seemingly not publicly
disseminated” thus constituting “rule corruption.” 	See id. 	Plaintiff asserts that he reported this
issue to the Defendants, but they are “seemingly sponsoring behavior in Corruption Report,” by
“setting what has seemingly become inert policy.” See id. 	He demands “adjusting rule review
and adoption processes allowing for more acceptable agility given currency state,” “rule
suggestion processing,” and alternatively, “United States Justice removal.” See id.
Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure. 	See
Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239–40 (D.D.C. 1987). Federal Rule 8(a) requires a complaint
to contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction [and] (2) a
Case 1:25-cv-02680-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 2

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 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-
71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that respondents 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).
Here, Plaintiff’s vague allegations fall well short of providing notice of any claim or establishing
this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Complaint, and this matter, without prejudice. 	An
Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
TREVOR N. McFADDEN
Date: November 18, 2025 	United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02680-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 2