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-03039 (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, it dismisses this matter without
prejudice.
Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues the United States and the Justices of
the Supreme Court of the United States. See Compl. at 1. The Complaint is vague, at best. Plaintiff
alleges that he “has submitted several court suggestions,” but some of them “have seemingly not
been formally entered into the official information technology system, after months.” Compl. at 1.
These “court suggestions” include a mandatory “Pro Se Intake Email Address,” for all federal
districts, and a mandatory “Misconduct Complaint Email Address,” for all federal circuits. See id.
He alleges that, because his suggestions have not been universally adopted, he has suffered, but he
does not explain how he has suffered. 	He asks for a “nationwide Pro Se Intake Email Address
implementation,” and a “Nationwide Misconduct Email Address implementation.” Id.
Case 1:25-cv-03039-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 3

First, 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. 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 short of providing notice of a claim or
establishing this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Indeed, it is unclear what legal duty, if any,
the Defendants owe Plaintiff to accept his “suggestions,” or when or to whom he submitted them,
or if he did so through the proper channels.
As for the latter, insofar as Plaintiff is attempting to institute a policy for federal courts to
universally accept pro se complaints by email, the process to amend or enact a new federal rule of
procedure is subject to multiple levels of review, not, as requested here, by and through a federal
district court; instead, Plaintiff must seek relief through a process involving the Advisory
Committee on Civil Rules, the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Rules of Practice and
Procedure (“the Committee”), public commentary, the Judicial Conference of the United States,
the Supreme Court, and finally, Congress. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071, et seq (Rules Enabling Act).
Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. § 2, the public may submit suggestions
for changes to the Federal Rules by sending them to the Committee directly. The Federal Rules
Advisory Committee reviews such suggestions and, if meritorious, may hold hearings on the
proposed changes and accept public comment. See id. Simply put, as far as Plaintiff’s claims can
Case 1:25-cv-03039-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 3

even be understood, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to affect the comprehensive
procedural change demanded. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). And it certainly lacks jurisdiction to
supervise the Justices of the Supreme Court. 	Accord Elias v. Harris, 23-cv-986, 2023 WL
4560836, at *1 (D.D.C. July 17, 2023).
Accordingly, and for all these reasons, 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 24, 2025 	United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-03039-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/24/25 Page 3 of 3