MALLGREN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANTHONY BRIAN MALLGREN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-03040 (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 as discussed below, dismisses this matter for failure to meet the
minimal pleading requirements set forth by Federal Rule 8(a).
Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues the United States and the District of
Columbia. 	See Compl. at 1. 	The Complaint is an undeveloped laundry list of either tenuously
connected or entirely disconnected claims. See generally id. He first alleges that he “financed a
land plot in Texas . . . [and] submitted a construction loan application” to United Home Mortgage
for a USDA insured loan. 	See id. at 1. It is unclear when he submitted this loan application––
indeed, no supporting details provided––and United Home Mortgage is not a defendant to this
action. 	Plaintiff contends that, since the application’s submission, United Home Mortgage has
been unresponsive, as has the Ohio Attorney General, the D.C. Attorney General, and the Texas
Attorney General, all of whom he apparently contacted, at an unknown time, for assistance. See
id.
Case 1:25-cv-03040-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 3

Next, Plaintiff pivots topics, asserting that his land plot in Texas “is currently inflicted by
compliance code mandating the survey and installation of a septic tank . . . 	by a state certified
professional.” See id. at 2. He fundamentally disagrees with this requirement because the “World
Health Organization has stated the viability and safety of methods of waste management other than
Septic Mandate.” 	See id. 	He has also reached out to vocational rehabilitation services in the
District of Columbia, New York, and Florida, as well as the Small Business Administration, to
“obtain 	State 	Land 	Certificate 	credentials,” 	ostensibly 	to 	attempt 	to 	handle 	this 	“septic
requirement” personally, but he has been unsuccessful in connecting with those entities. See id.
He then asserts that he has “exhausted” his claim through “standard social media platforms,
community forums, professional and education social events.” Id.
Finally, apropos of nothing, Plaintiff states that he “requested a passport, though the
UNITED STATES STATE DEPARTMENT has said that even for travel within 3 days, the
application cannot be processed until a letter is received and responded to, which may take up to
two weeks to receive.” See id. He demands training through vocational rehabilitation to obtain
his “State Land Certificate,” in Texas, “business services” and “federal social activities,” removal
of all U.S. Attorney Generals from their positions, and “facilitation of or processing [the United
Home Mortgage] construction loan.” See id.
Pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, 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
Case 1:25-cv-03040-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 3

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).
Here, the allegations cannot be described as clear and direct, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1),
and are not properly 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,” 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) (cleaned up). Plaintiff’s Complaint falls
squarely into this category. It is vague and haphazard, comprised of a hodgepodge of grievances,
failing to establish the duty, if any, of the Defendants, to afford him the relief sought, and further
failing to provide adequate notice of a cogent claim.
Accordingly, this matter is dismissed without prejudice. 	A separate Order accompanies
this Memorandum Opinion.
TREVOR N. McFADDEN
Date: November 24, 2025 	United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-03040-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/24/25 Page 3 of 3