KNIGHT v. HOME DEPOT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARVIN KNIGHT, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-03941 (UNA)
)
HOME DEPOT, 	)
)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is currently before the Court on consideration of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint,
ECF No. 1, and his Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. Upon
review, the Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP Application, and dismisses this matter without prejudice.
Plaintiff, 	a 	resident 	of 	the 	District 	of 	Columbia, 	sues 	Home 	Depot, 	ostensibly
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. See Compl. at 1–4. The Complaint’s allegations are vague and
spare. Plaintiff states only that “his claim is lost wages from employer/company Home Depot’s
managers on duty[.] [He] reported the issue to . . . Guy, Jerry, Carlos, and Lydia, all transferred
[except] for one Guy M.O.D. on duty[,] a Caucasian male with company 30 years.” Id. at 4. He
closes the Complaint by broadly noting a “violation of labor and employment laws, civil rights
violation[s][,] wage violation[s],” sustained for a period of “three plus years.” See id. 	He appears
to seek damages, but it is not clear, and he does not demand a specific amount. See id.
Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Jarrell v. Tisch,
656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987), and here, the Complaint and its addendums fail 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
Case 1:25-cv-03941-UNA Document 9 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 3

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). 	Notably,
“[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 omitted).
Plaintiff’s Complaint falls within this category. 	The allegations fail to provide the
Defendant or the Court with adequate notice of a claim. The details or context required to state a
cognizable claim are missing--for example, how, when, or why, Plaintiff allegedly suffered loss
wages, how much he lost, where the alleged actions giving rise to this case occurred, or the nature
of his employment. And although Plaintiff generally refers to “labor and employment” or “civil
rights” laws, see Compl. at 4, he does not cite to any specific authority, nor can the intended
authority be inferred, as pleaded. In doing so, Plaintiff presents less than “threadbare recitals” that
are “supported by mere conclusory statements,” which is insufficient to state a claim. See Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678. Indeed, a complaint “must plead ‘factual matter’ that permits the court to infer
‘more than the mere possibility of [defendant’s] misconduct.’” Atherton v. District of Columbia
Office of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 681–82 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79;
see Aktieselskabet AF 21. Nov.2001 v. Fame Jeans, Inc., 525 F.3d 8, 16 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“We
have never accepted ‘legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations’ because a complaint
needs some information about the circumstances giving rise to the claims.”) (quoting Kowal v.
MCI Commc’ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).
Case 1:25-cv-03941-UNA Document 9 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 3

For these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. 	Plaintiff’s other pending
Motions, ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, are all denied as moot. A separate Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
Date: 	March 9, 2026
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-03941-UNA Document 9 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 3