MYKONOS v. MATHEMATICA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STEPHANIE MYKONOS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 25-04025 (UNA)
)
)
MATHEMATICA, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This action brought pro se is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s complaint and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court grants the
application and dismisses the complaint.
Plaintiff, a resident of Washington, D.C., alleges that “DC’s Mathematica in conjunction
with” the District of Columbia have “collud[ed] while actively promoting violations of the I.N.A.
and U.S.C. on expansion of ‘means tested’ public benefits on DC-soil for homeless single female
illegal aliens and their forthcoming children.” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1. The allegations are far
from clear; however, Plaintiff suggests that “Mathematica’s Medicaid Director . . . crafted such
policy” for personal gain to the detriment of D.C. taxpayers, including herself. Id. Plaintiff claims
that “due to this civil RICO, our homeless single female U.S.A. citizen natives were told ‘no
emergency shelter; come back another night and ma’m [sic] stop calling the E.R. shelter line,’ ”
knowing “there’s no beds anywhere in the District.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff seeks an order “to stop” the
District from “processing ‘means tested’ public benefits for homeless single female illegal aliens
with forthcoming children” and “civil and monetary fines.” Id. at 2.
Case 1:25-cv-04025-UNA Document 14 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 2

2
The Supreme Court “has consistently held” that a plaintiff raising, as here, “only a
generally available grievance about government,” claiming no specific harm to herself, and
“seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits [her] than it does the public at large does
not state an Article III case or controversy” or establish Article III standing. Lujan v. Defenders
of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573-74 (1992); see DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342
(2006) (“The ‘core component’ of the requirement that a litigant have standing to invoke the
authority of a federal court ‘is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy
requirement of Article III.’ ”) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). And “the defect of standing is a
defect in subject matter jurisdiction.” 	Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring
dismissal “at any time” the court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction).
_________/s/____________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
Date: April 6, 2026 	United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-04025-UNA Document 14 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 2