CLARK et al v. UNITED STATES SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
APRIL-LASHELLE CLARK, et al., 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 25-3321 (UNA)
)
UNITED STATES SOCIAL SECURITY 	)
ADMINISTRATION, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiffs’ applications to proceed in forma
pauperis and pro se civil complaint. 	The Court GRANTS the applications and, for the reasons
stated below, DISMISSES the complaint and this civil action without prejudice.
The Court has reviewed plaintiffs’ complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro
se litigants are held to less stringent standards than are applied to formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants must comply with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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 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. FED. R. C IV. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give
fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer,
to 	prepare 	an 	adequate 	defense 	and 	to 	determine 	whether 	the 	doctrine 	of res
judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).
Case 1:25-cv-03321-UNA Document 4 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 2

2
April-Lashelle Clark purports to be “attorney-in-fact for Plaintiff [Kenneth] Hill,” Compl.
¶ 5, a disabled adult, see id. ¶ 6.1 Plaintiffs allege all manner of misconduct regarding Mr. Hill’s
application for or receipt of Social Security and Medicare benefits, from fraud, see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 19,
22, to Mr. Hill’s alleged enslavement, see, e.g., id. ¶ 21. But the complaint offers nothing more
than vague and conclusory assertions which utterly fail to articulate a viable legal claim against
any of the named defendants. 	As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimum pleading
standard set forth in Rule 8, and it will be dismissed.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
DATE: November 24, 2025
TREVOR N. McFADDEN
United States District Judge
1 	The Court notes that, by filing this civil action in the District of Columbia, Ms. Clark
evades the injunction order entered against her in the Southern District of Ohio. See Opinion &
Order, Clark v. Williams, No. 2:23-cv-4201 (S.D. Ohio May 15, 2024) (ECF No. 23) (deeming
Clark a vexatious litigator who, in order to file new civil cases, must either: (1) retain counsel to
support her in any future litigation endeavors; or (2) submit a statement from an attorney
licensed to practice in [the Southern District of Ohio] or the State of Ohio certifying that there is
a good faith basis for the action or paper she seeks to file).
Case 1:25-cv-03321-UNA Document 4 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 2