CHEN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MAY CHEN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 	26-00058 (UNA)
)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a form pleading captioned “Complaint for a Civil Case
Alleging that the Defendant Owes Plaintiff a Sum of Money” and an application to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP). 	For the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP application and
dismisses the complaint.
Plaintiff sues the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and Salvation Army Harbor
Lights Center and Adams Place NE Homeless Shelter, both located in Washington, D.C. 	The
alleged amount owed is “885000000000000000000000000 USD.” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 4. In
addition to that astronomical sum of money, Plaintiff seeks a “Criminal Prosecution” and a
“Barring Notice, Injunction Relief.” Id.
Although pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), they must comport 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
Case 1:26-cv-00058-UNA Document 3 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 2

2
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief
the pleader seeks. It “does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (cleaned up). Thus, the pleader must allege enough facts to permit a court “to infer
more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., 789 F.3d 146,
150 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). The pleading rules ensure 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 res judicata applies. See Brown v. Califano, 75
F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 	They also assist the court in determining whether it has
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Plaintiff has not alleged a coherent set of facts to “give the defendants fair notice” of the
claims for damages and injunctive relief, Jones v. Kirchner, 835 F.3d 74, 79 (D.C. Cir. 2016), and
a private citizen like Plaintiff “lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the [criminal] prosecution .
. . of another,” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). Therefore, this case will be
dismissed by separate order.
_________/s/___________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
Date: April 7, 2026 	United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00058-UNA Document 3 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 2