UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ANTHONY BRIAN MALLGREN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-2951 (UNA) ) ) UNITED STATES PERSONS ) (besides me) WITH NATURALLY ) OCCURRING FEMALE ) REPRODUCTIVE ORGAN, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of the plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The Court grants the application

and dismisses the complaint without prejudice.

The Court holds a pro se complaint to a “less stringent standard[]” than is applied to a

pleading drafted by a lawyer. Haines v. Kerner,

(1972). Still, a pro se litigant

must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch,

(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). It “does not require detailed factual

allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (quotations omitted). The Rule 8

standard ensures 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,

(D.D.C. 1977).

The Court dismisses the complaint for the simple reason that there are no factual allegations

supporting an actual legal claim. The only statement resembling a factual allegation is unclear.

See Compl. at 1 (alleging “that all respondent constitutionalized persons in the case are acting

anticompetitively and destructively”). As drafted, the complaint falls well short of Rule 8’s

minimal pleading standard, and the Court will dismiss it without prejudice. A separate order

accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: November 12, 2025 /s/ DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH United States District Judge

2