MALLGREN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANTHONY BRIAN MALLGREN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02949 (UNA)
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
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 for the reasons discussed below, dismisses this matter for failure
to meet the minimal pleading standards of Federal Rule 8(a).
Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues the United States. See Compl. at 1;
Compl. Supplement (“Compl. Supp.”), ECF No. 1-2. The Complaint is vague and sparse. Plaintiff
states only that “Federal operation requires federal implement, without which would undermine
community merit. 	United States Housing and Urban Development hereby ordered requested
voucher transfer facilitation. 	If state and municipalities found unwilling, execute federal
appropriation by eminent domain.” Compl. Supp. at 1. The remainder of the Complaint consists
of an unexplained email chain, see D.C. LCvR 5.1(e), between Plaintiff and representatives from
PIBLY Residential Programs, Inc., located in Bronx, New York, regarding checks from HUD, see
Compl. Exhibit, ECF No. 1-1.
Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure. 	See
Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239–40 (D.D.C. 1987). Federal Rule 8(a) requires a complaint
Case 1:25-cv-02949-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 2

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 respondents 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, Plaintiff’s nebulous assertions fall well short of providing notice of any claim or establishing
this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Complaint, and this matter, without prejudice. 	An
Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
TREVOR N. McFADDEN
Date: November 20, 2025 	United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02949-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 2