CHEN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MAY CHEN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00311 (UNA)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint
(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). For the
reasons discussed below, it denies Plaintiff’s IFP Application and dismisses this matter without
prejudice.
At the outset, the Court denies Plaintiff’s IFP Application because it is unsigned. 	See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 11(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see also Paracha v. Bush, 374 F. Supp. 2d 118, 120–21
(D.D.C. 2005) (explaining that, pursuant to the applicable statutory and Rule requirements, an IFP
Application must be accompanied by a sworn affidavit).
Plaintiff sues the District of Columbia, the Salvation Army Harbor Lights Center, Adams
Place NE Homeless Shelter, and the State of Maryland. See Compl. at 2. The Complaint is also
unsigned, in contravention of Federal Rule 11(a), and it bears yet additional procedural defects;
apart from citing broadly to various procedural rules, and demanding 885 septillion dollars in
damages, as well as a “criminal prosecution,” a barring order, and an injunction, see id. at 4–6, the
pleading provides no other information whatsoever. 	And although the Complaint attaches several
exhibits (“Exs.”), ECF No. 1-1, Plaintiff does not explain them, in contravention of D.C. Local
Civil Rule 5.1(e), nor does she actually plead a single claim arising therefrom. As best gleaned
Case 1:26-cv-00311-UNA Document 3 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 3

from the Exhibits, Plaintiff believes that the Defendant Shelters, both located in the District of
Columbia, have perpetuated myriad wrongs against her, see generally Exs. 	It is largely unclear
what alleged wrongdoing the District of Columbia committed, if any, and even more unclear with
respect to the State of Maryland’s involvement in this case, if any.
Federal Rule 8(a) requires complaints 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
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 dearth of facts, context, or even the barest of allegations, fall well short of
providing notice of any claim or establishing this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, or Plaintiff’s
entitlement, if any, to damages. Indeed, even if Plaintiff’s intended claims were better understood,
it is virtually inconceivable that 885 septillion dollars in damages would be warranted, and such a
demand is frivolous on its face. See Shells v. NRA, 2023 WL 11658586, at *1 (D.D.C. Sept. 13,
2023) (dismissing complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff demanded a
“frivolous amount” in damages and made “no other attempt to quantify damages[.]”) (citing
Carroll v. Merriwether, 921 F. Supp. 828, 830 (D.D.C. 1996) (dismissing complaint for lack of
subject 	matter 	jurisdiction 	where 	plaintiff’s 	alleged 	amount 	in 	controversy 	was 	“utterly
frivolous”)).
Case 1:26-cv-00311-UNA Document 3 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 3

For all of these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: 	April 27, 2026 	___________/s/____________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00311-UNA Document 3 Filed 04/27/26 Page 3 of 3