ANDRESKI v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHRISTOPHER ANDRESKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 25 - 2977 (LLA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In November 2025, the court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff Christopher Andreski’s pro se
complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), but the court permitted
Mr. Andreski to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 	ECF No. 40. 	Mr. Andreski
thereafter filed an amended complaint, ECF No. 51, a supplement to his complaint, ECF No. 52,
and various motions, ECF Nos. 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 53, 55, 63. 	The court will dismiss
Mr. Andreksi’s amended complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)—this time with
prejudice—and it will deny his outstanding motions.
Complaints by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.” 	Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 	Pro se litigants nonetheless
must follow the Federal Rules. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a)
requires that a complaint include: (1) “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction,” (2) “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief,” and (3) “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3) (emphases added); see
id. R. 8(d)(1) (requiring “simple, concise, and direct” allegations). 	These rules ensure that
Case 1:25-cv-02977-LLA Document 65 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 4

2
defendants have “notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
A complaint that is “excessively long, rambling, disjointed, incoherent, or full of irrelevant and
confusing material,” or one that “contains an untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly
nor concisely stated, nor meaningfully distinguished from bold conclusions, sharp harangues and
personal comments,” fails to meet Rule 8’s pleading standards. Jiggetts v. District of Columbia,
319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d sub nom., Cooper v. District of Columbia, No. 17-7021,
2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017) (quoting T.M. v. District of Columbia, 961 F. Supp.
2d 169, 174 (D.D.C. 2013)). 	And a court may dismiss a complaint that fails to adhere to the
requirements of Rule 8 either upon a motion or sua sponte. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also
Ciralsky v. Cent. Intel. Agency, 355 F.3d 661, 669 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (noting that “Rule 41(b)
authorizes the court to dismiss either a claim or an action because of the plaintiff’s failure to
comply with the Federal Rules”).
The court will again sua sponte dismiss Mr. Andreski’s amended complaint because it fails
to meet Rule 8’s pleading standard for largely the same reasons stated in the court’s previous
opinion. 	ECF No. 40, at 2-6. 	Mr. Andreski again alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy of various
unnamed individuals engaged in “harmful terrorizing racketeering retaliation attacks,” including,
among other things, spying on Mr. Andreksi with drones, ECF No. 51, at 17, impeding his
rehabilitation and medical treatment, id. at 8-9, and subjecting him to searches by women
apparently wearing the uniforms of court security officers and working in federal courthouses as
Case 1:25-cv-02977-LLA Document 65 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 4

3
a “ruse,” id. at 23.1 	Such allegations still do not enable the court to discern the substance of
Mr. Andreski’s claims or determine whether, if true, his allegations would entitle him to relief.
See Brown v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 164 F. Supp. 3d 33, 35 (D.D.C. 2016). And there
are still “no well-pled factual allegations that describe this . . . streak of unlawful conduct with any
degree of detail capable of providing ‘fair notice’ to Defendants as to the basis of this action.”
Dalbis v. Pub. Emps. of Sec. & Intel. Servs. of France & Eur., No. 24-CV-1434, 2024 WL
3338802, at *1 (D.D.C. July 9, 2024).
At this point, the court does not find that further opportunities to amend will save
Mr. Andreski’s claims. 	Accordingly, the court will dismiss his complaint with prejudice. 	See
Brown, 164 F. Supp. 3d at 35 (explaining that a court may dismiss with prejudice when the
amended complaint “merely recycles” the original complaint). 	That dismissal renders most of
Mr. Andreski’s outstanding motions moot, and the court will deny them as such. See Doe v. United
States, No. 25-CV-1229, 2025 WL 1895607, at *1 (D.D.C. July 7, 2025).2 A contemporaneous
order will issue.
1 Several of Mr. Andreski’s allegations appear to stem from a dispute about his benefits as a former
federal employee. He previously filed a similar federal suit related to the denial of benefits, which
was also dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Andreski v. U.S.
Dep’t 	of 	Lab., 	No. 24-CV-699 	(W.D. Mich. Aug. 13, 	2024), 	ECF 	No. 16 	(recommending
dismissal 	for 	failure to 	provide a short 	and 	plain 	statement); 	id. ECF No. 21 	(adopting
recommendation and ordering Mr. Andreski to file an amended complaint); id. ECF No. 28
(recommending dismissal of the case with prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s order
and 	for 	failure 	to 	“set 	forth 	any 	actionable 	legal 	claims”); 	id. 	ECF 	No. 30 	(adopting
recommendation and dismissing case with prejudice).
2 Mr. Andreski has filed a motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 46, and a motion to reopen the
case, ECF No. 47, which appear to be requests that the court reconsider its order denying his earlier
motions as moot when it dismissed his initial complaint, ECF No. 40. The court had previously
dismissed those motions as moot because, having dismissed Mr. Andreski’s complaint, there was
no operative complaint. 	Because the court will dismiss his amended complaint, those earlier
motions remain moot. The court will accordingly deny Mr. Andreski’s motion for reconsideration,
ECF No. 46, and motion to reopen, ECF No. 47.
Case 1:25-cv-02977-LLA Document 65 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 4

4
SO ORDERED.
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
United States District Judge
Date: 	February 17, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-02977-LLA Document 65 Filed 02/17/26 Page 4 of 4