HINKLE v. FBI et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SUSAN M. HINKLE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 	25-02819 (UNA)
)
)
FBI et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This action brought pro se is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s complaint and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). 	For the following reasons, the Court
grants the IFP motion and dismisses the case.
Plaintiff sues the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 	and 	the 	Central 	Intelligence 	Agency. 	She 	invokes 	the 	Fifth 	and 	Eighth
Amendments and mentions, torture, rape, human trafficking, and poison. See generally Compl.,
ECF No. 1. 	Plaintiff attaches photos of her injuries, ECF No. 1-2, and states that there “is no
amount of money that will ever be enough” presumably to compensate her. Id. at 4. While she
arguably alleges a “what,” she does not say who did this, when, or where. Plaintiff states that she
moved to Washington, D.C. from Florence, Arizona, and is unhoused, but “will call the court
weekly.” Id. at 1, 5.
Although pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), they must comport with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987).
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and
Case 1:25-cv-02819-UNA Document 6 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 2

2
plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for
the relief the pleader seeks. It “does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more
than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Plaintiff has not alleged facts to “give the defendants fair notice of what the claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests,” Jones v. Kirchner, 835 F.3d 74, 79 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (cleaned
up), much less established a “waiver of the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity,” Lane v.
Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996). Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order.
____________________________
Dated: November 12, 2025 	TREVOR N. McFADDEN, U.S.D.J.
Case 1:25-cv-02819-UNA Document 6 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 2