ELMORE et al v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MATTHEW ROBERT ELMORE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 25-2243 (UNA)
)
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court GRANTS the application and, for the reasons
stated below, DISMISSES the complaint and this civil action without prejudice.
The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro
se litigants are held to less stringent standards than are applied to formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even 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 upon 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 judgment for the relief
the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give
fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted such that they might 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).
Case 1:25-cv-02243-UNA Document 4 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Of a Department of Motor Vehicles, plaintiff demands “all of [his] history from the DMV
in all of [his] names since 1989,” Compl. at 3, as well as copies of his identification, see id. at 4.
The complaint does not identify the intended DMV, however, and it is unclear whether or how
an action presumably brought against a State agency properly is before a federal district court.
Nor is it plausible that the amount in controversy is “10 goZillion.” Id. at 4.
As drafted, the complaint does not comply with Rule 8, and it will be dismissed. An
Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
DATE: January 2, 2026 /s/
ANA C. REYES
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02243-UNA Document 4 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 2