UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

OLHA NOHA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-01917 (UNA) ) DONALD TRUMP, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and her

Application to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. Plaintiff’s IFP Application is

granted and, for the reasons explained below, this matter is dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff, a resident of Maryland, sues the President of the United States, the U.S. Secretary

of Agriculture, and the Secretary of the Maryland Department of Human Services. See Compl. at

1–2. In addition to the Complaint itself, Plaintiff has filed a persistent influx of submissions in

this matter, and in those submissions, she broadly cites to myriad legal authority, though, at root,

she takes issue with a recent denial of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”)

benefits by her local Maryland Department of Human Services Office (“Maryland DHS”) based

on her purported citizenship status, which has then affected her eligibility for other benefits,

including Social Security. See id. at 6–14, 16; see also Compl. Exhibits (“Compl. Exs.”), ECF

No. 1-1, at 1, 3, 5, 11–24.

Although SNAP benefits fall under the United States Department of Agriculture’s federal

nutrition assistance program, see

, SNAP “is administered by State governments;”

therefore, Plaintiff “must file suit against the specific state agency that denied h[er] benefits,”

Wagner v. U.S. Solicitor Gen., No. 22-cv-03688

, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2022) (citing

) (other citation omitted). Indeed, Plaintiff seems to acknowledge

this principle, because she has sued Maryland’s DHS Secretary. See Compl. at 2. Accordingly,

to challenge a Maryland benefits determination, she must follow the appropriate procedures for

administrative review, file an appeal with her local Maryland DHS, see Md. Code Regs. §§

07.0l.04 et seq., 07.03.17.51, 07.03.17.58, 28.02.01; Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t §§ 10-2017 et

seq.;

et seq., which it appears she may have attempted, see Compl. Exs. at 14, 16–

19, and thereafter, jurisdiction for review is sounded in the Maryland state court system, not federal

court, see Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 10-222; Md. Rules 7-201 et. seq.

Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter and it is dismissed without

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Plaintiff’s remaining pending Motions, ECF Nos. 3, 4, 7,

8, 9, 13, 18, are all denied as moot. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: August 5, 2025 __________/s/_________________ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge