MALLGREN v. UNITED STATES et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANTHONY BRIAN MALLGREN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-03003 (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 sues the United States and the U.S. Supreme Court Justices. See Compl. at 1. The
Complaint is vague, at best. Plaintiff alleges that he
originally 	entered 	into 	litigation 	under 	the 	seemingly 	initial 	false
impression that the United States court allowed someone to proceed
through trial as a pauper, as a test of resolve, ensuring that a litigant was
truly in financial duress sufficient enough to warrant a period of resource
deprivation while involved in a scoped litigation (“Trial Scoped Pauper”).
In addition to Trial Scoped Pauper, Anthony Brian Mallgren, petitioner,
was also under the seemingly initial false impression that the United States
court would cease application of forced resource deprivation after the trial
and grant a potentially financial judgement based upon the merits found at
trial (“Financial Merit”). After performing research, Anthony Brian
Mallgren, petitioner, could not find one instance where a litigant, against
which an in forma pauperis motion had been granted, had been granted a
monetary judgement.
Id. (paragraph numbers removed). Plaintiff demands “[e]xplanation of current in forma pauperis
applications,” and “[a]djustment to allow Financial Merit.” Id.
Case 1:25-cv-03003-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 2

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 ambiguous allegations fall well short of providing notice of any claim or
establishing this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 	Furthermore, the Court cannot, as Plaintiff
requests, instruct a pro se litigant or advocate on his behalf. See Moore v. Agency for Int’l Dev.,
994 F. 2d 874, 876 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, and for all of 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: December 8, 2025 	United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-03003-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 2