MALLGREN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANTHONY BRIAN MALLGREN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-01012 (UNA)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint
(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 	The
Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP Application, and for the reasons discussed below, it dismisses the
Complaint, and this matter, without prejudice.
Plaintiff, a resident of New York, sues the United States. See Compl. at 1. The Complaint
is difficult to follow, consisting of a laundry list of assorted grievances. See generally id. First,
Plaintiff alleges that his mailbox was broken into and that someone stole his mail. See id. at 1–2.
Second, Plaintiff pivots to the city of New York itself, alleging that “‘New York City Managers’[]
began 	questioning 	what 	Anthony 	Brian 	Mallgren, 	petitioner, 	was 	doing 	(‘Activity
Questioning’)[,]” but then “rebuked [his] Activity Response,” causing him to check into Bellevue
Hospital “under duress.” 	See id. at 2. Third, he alleges that, while at Bellevue, his roommate
attempted to murder him. Fourth, Plaintiff contends that, due to the “rebuke” and the corruption
“charges [that] were brought up against Mayor Eric Adams,” he “sought asylum in Switzerland.”
See id. 	Finally, Plaintiff asserts that he faced adversity with Swiss authorities, and then more
adversity in Florida and Texas, related to the confiscation, return, and eventual theft of his passport,
and the loss of his wallet, which caused him to incur fees and interest and to close his bank account.
Case 1:26-cv-01012-UNA Document 3 Filed 06/01/26 Page 1 of 3

See id. at 3. He believes that the United States is responsible for all of the alleged events, “and
believes the federal court not to be a federal court at all, but a guise hiding under English based
legal principles, ultimately setup in an attempt to appease the general public while committing
large scale fraud (‘Waste of Life’).” 	See id. at 4. 	He demands equitable relief and $10,000 in
damages. See id.
Pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, see Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F.
Supp. 237, 239–40 (D.D.C. 1987), and here, the Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a pleading 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 defendants 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).
Plaintiff’s allegations are neither clear nor direct, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1), and the
paragraphs are not limited to a single set of circumstances, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). When, as
here, a pleading “contains an untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely
stated, nor meaningfully distinguished from bold conclusions, sharp harangues and personal
comments [,]” it does not fulfill the requirements of Rule 8. 	Jiggetts v. Dist. of Columbia, 319
F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017
WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017). Put differently, “[a] confused and rambling narrative of
charges and conclusions . . . does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort
Myer Constr. Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks
Case 1:26-cv-01012-UNA Document 3 Filed 06/01/26 Page 2 of 3

omitted). Plaintiff’s Complaint falls squarely into this category, failing to provide the Court or the
Defendant with adequate notice of a claim, and falling short of establishing the Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (“we do not require
heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face”); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (2009) (“Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”).
Accordingly, this matter is dismissed without prejudice. 	A separate Order accompanies
this Memorandum Opinion.
DATE: June 1, 2026 	/s/ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01012-UNA Document 3 Filed 06/01/26 Page 3 of 3