MATTHEWS v. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ROBERT R. MATTHEWS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00403 (UNA)
v. 	)
)
UNITED STATES PATENT 	)
AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint, ECF
No. 1, and Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. 	The Court grants
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis Application, and for the reasons explained below, this matter is
dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff sues the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The Complaint is not a
model of clarity. Although Plaintiff, at times, goes on at length about the nature of his invention
and its associated patent application, it appears that what he actually challenges is the deactivation
of his online USPTO portal account. 	He does not explain the reason why the account was
deactivated, but he insinuates that it had to do with the length of his submissions. He asks that this
Court order USPTO to reactive his online account.
First, 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 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.
Case 1:26-cv-00403-UNA Document 4 Filed 05/26/26 Page 1 of 3

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). 	“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). 	The instant Complaint
falls squarely into this category.
Second, it is completely unclear under what, if any, legal authority Plaintiff relies on to
establish subject matter jurisdiction, or to more generally bring this lawsuit, but the Court
acknowledges that the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) waives the sovereign immunity of
the United States for certain claims against federal agencies. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–06. But under
the APA, a “final agency action” is necessary prior to judicial review, and there is no indication
that Plaintiff has received any such determination. See 5 U.S.C. § 704; McCoy v. Cardamone, 646
F. Supp. 1143, 1144–45 (D.D.C. 1986). Here, there is no indication that Plaintiff has even reached
out to the USPTO to request reactivating his account, which it appears he may attempt to do
himself or with USPTO’s assistance, see USPTO, MyUSPTO and USPTO.gov account FAQs,
Categories: Self-Activate & Reactivate; Account Maintenance; Customer Support, available at
https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/account-faqs (last visited May 22, 2026),1 or,
assuming that Plaintiff verified the cause of the deactivation was some type of sanction, that he
challenged that decision with the USPTO’s Director, or that he otherwise administratively
appealed, see 37 CFR §§ 1.181, 2.146.
1 	The Court may take judicial notice of information from official public websites of government agencies. See
Cannon v. Dist. of Columbia, 717 F.3d 200, 205 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
Case 1:26-cv-00403-UNA Document 4 Filed 05/26/26 Page 2 of 3

As pleaded, it is unclear what obligation, if any, the USPTO has under the APA, or any
other authority, to comply with Plaintiff’s demands regarding his online account, nor does Plaintiff
cite to any law to show that this Court has authority to direct that discrete agency action. For these
reasons, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice. 	An Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
DATE: May 26, 2026 	/s/ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00403-UNA Document 4 Filed 05/26/26 Page 3 of 3