MATTHEWS v. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT COURT et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PATRICK MATTHEWS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 26-00828 (UNA)
)
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA 	)
DISTRICT COURT et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP application and dismisses the
complaint.
Plaintiff, a resident of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, sues the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the Allegheny
County Jail in Pennsylvania, and the Pittsburgh Police Department. 	In the form complaint,
Plaintiff lists multiple provisions of the U.S. Constitution and mentions “1984 Sentencing Reform
Act 44” as the bases of jurisdiction. Compl., ECF No. 1 at 3. Under Statement of Claim, Plaintiff
writes “Venango County Sherrifs [sic] and Venango County prison re-offended due to not doing
due process in civil law.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff seeks “a preliminary injunction satisfied, ‘Released
from Venango County Prison Jail’.” Id.
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, Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule
Case 1:26-cv-00828-UNA Document 3 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 2

2
8(a) requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of (1) the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction, (2) the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) the relief demanded.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 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) (cleaned up). Thus, the pleader must allege enough facts to permit a court “to infer
more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., 789 F.3d 146,
150 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). The pleading rules ensure that defendants receive fair notice
of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer, mount an adequate
defense, and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. See Brown v. Califano, 75
F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 	They also assist the court in determining whether it has
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Plaintiff has not alleged a coherent set of facts to “give the defendants fair notice” of the
claims. Jones v. Kirchner, 835 F.3d 74, 79 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Furthermore, this district court lacks
jurisdiction over any claims brought against its sister court in Pennsylvania, see Atchison v. U.S.
District Courts, 190 F. Supp. 3d 78, 88 (D.D.C. 2016) (collecting cases), and any claims against
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. See Sanders v. United States, 184 F. App’x 13, 14 (D.C. Cir.
2006) (per curiam) (“The district court correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review
decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.”). Therefore, this case will
be dismissed by separate order.
_________/s/___________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
Date: April 27, 2026 	United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00828-UNA Document 3 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 2