HAYNES v. REAGAN et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CANDICE HAYNES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 25-3837 (UNA)
)
MARGOT F. REAGAN, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court GRANTS the application and, for the reasons
stated below, DISMISSES the complaint and this civil action without prejudice.
It appears that plaintiff’s claims arise from the issuance and enforcement of an Indiana state
court order in 2015 granting plaintiff’s ex-husband custody of their minor child. See Compl. ¶¶
14–15. Subsequent events included plaintiff’s arrest by police officers in Washington, DC and
Baltimore, MD, see id. ¶¶ 17–18, and, it appears, supervision by Maryland’s Department of Public
Safety and Correctional Services, see id. ¶ 19, pursuant to court orders, see id. ¶¶ 7, 20. As a
result of defendants’ actions, plaintiff allegedly suffers “severe emotional distress, reputational
harm, financial loss exceeding $70,000 in wages, and damage to her parental relationship.” Id. ¶
22. As compensation for alleged violations of rights protected under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, see id. at 5 (page numbers designated
by CM/ECF), plaintiff demands a declaratory judgment, compensatory and punitive damages,
“injunctive relief prohibiting further enforcement of the 2015 order,” and an award of “not less
than $2 million,” id. at 6 (emphasis removed).
Case 1:25-cv-03837-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 2

2
As drafted, the complaint is deficient in several respects. For starters, the complaint’s
caption does not include the full residence address or official address of each defendant as is
required under Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1). More importantly, the complaint fails to contain a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief as is required under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Rule 8’s purpose is to give fair notice to the defendants of the
claim(s) being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense
and to determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies, see Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D.
497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977), and the instant complaint falls short. Missing, for example, are factual
allegations regarding the terms of the 2015 court order and any defendant’s violation of that order,
the dates, places, the circumstances surrounding plaintiff’s arrests, and the basis for plaintiff’s
demand for $2 million.
The Court will therefore DISMISS the complaint and this civil action without prejudice.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
DATE: December 5, 2025 /s/
ANA C. REYES
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-03837-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 2