Opinion

Noha v. Trump

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Aug 5, 2025
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge Jia M. Cobb
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 38.6%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

OLHA NOHA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1: 25-cv-01995 (UNA)

)

DONALD JOHN TRUMP, )

)

Defendant. )

___________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, who has submitted at least 17 mostly cryptic complaints in this Court in less than

four months, has filed a pro se Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and an application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2, in the instant matter. Upon review, the Court grants

Plaintiff’s IFP Application, and for the reasons explained below, it dismisses this matter without

prejudice.

Plaintiff, a resident of Maryland, sues the President of the United States and approximately

100 U.S. Senators. See Compl. at 1–27. The Complaint is vague and spare. Plaintiff sets forth a

mere single statement, “The Act.” See id. at 29. No other facts or information is provided, and

Plaintiff demand any relief.

Pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F.

Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Federal Rule 8(a) of requires a complaint 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. 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). Here, as presented,

neither the Court nor the Defendants can reasonably be expected to identify Plaintiff’s intended

claims, nor has Plaintiff established this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3).

For these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies

this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: August 5, 2025 __________/s/_________________

JIA M. COBB

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.