TURNER v. STEIN et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Action No. 26-3075 (UNA)
MATILDA TURNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSH STEIN et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
This matter is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. For the reasons explained below, the Court
will grant the application and dismiss the complaint and the case without prejudice.
Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards” than those applied
to pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, pro se litigants
must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239
(D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain
a short and plain statement of the grounds on which the court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judg-
ment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). It “does not require detailed factual
allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accu-
sation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). In addition, Rule 8(d)
states that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). “Taken
together, [those provisions] underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal
pleading rules.” Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 669 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (cleaned up). This standard
Case 1:26-cv-03075-UNA Document 3 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 2

2
ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a
responsive answer, mount an adequate defense, and determine whether the doctrine of claim pre-
clusion applies. See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).
The instant complaint is indeed brief, but it is barely legible. Plaintiff appears to allege
that government officials in North Carolina removed her children from her custody. See Compl.
at 4. But it is unclear what Plaintiff asks the Court to do, and on what legal grounds. The complaint
does not comply with Rule 8. And insofar as Plaintiff asks this Court to return her children to her
custody, federal district courts ordinarily decline to exercise jurisdiction over domestic relations
matters. See Bennett v. Bennett, 682 F.2d 1039, 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (citations omitted); see also
Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992).
For these reasons, the Court will dismiss the complaint, and the case, without prejudice. A
separate order will issue.
/s/ Timothy J. Kelly
TIMOTHY J. KELLY
United States District Judge
Date: October 9, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-03075-UNA Document 3 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 2