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-02950 (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 for failure
to meet the minimal pleading standards of Federal Rule 8(a).
Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues the United States and “Persons
(Besides [Plaintiff]) With Naturally Occurring Male Reproductive Organ.” See Compl. at 1. The
Complaint is vague and sparse. Plaintiff contends that “Nationwide jurisdiction [exists] by means
of proxying through the Supreme Court after finding that the lower courts have been attempting to
obstruct 	justice 	by 	illegal 	means,” 	and 	alleges 	that 	“it 	is 	believed 	that 	all 	respondent
constitutionalized persons in this case are acting anticompetitively and destructively.” 	Id. 	For
relief, he states that “time in making a decision whom is the greater party.” 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
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ.
Case 1:25-cv-02950-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 2

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 ambiguous 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: December 1, 2025 	United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02950-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 2