The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANTHONY BRIAN MALLGREN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02884 (UNA)
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and an
Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The Court grants
Plaintiff’s IFP application, and for the reasons discussed below, dismisses this matter for failure
to meet the minimal pleading standards set forth by Federal Rule 8(a).
Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues the United States. Compl. at 1. The
Complaint is nebulous and difficult to follow. See generally id. Plaintiff states
New York originally granted a poor person order against Anthony Brian
Mallgren, petitioner (“Attempted Relief”). Anthony Brian Mallgren,
petitioner, made an Attempted Relief rescindment request under 28 U.S.
Code § 1346 (a)(2) (recommending “District of Columbia” (“DoC”)
performcross-district-court communication pre-Supreme-Court) (“Relief
Rescindment”). Anthony Brian Mallgren, petitioner, experienced many
issues with currency/finance operation/regulation while in DoC, much of
which has not yet been resolved. Anthony Brian Mallgren, petitioner,
justified leaving DoC in favor of Bronx County due to low quality
interaction in DoC and a lack in efficient/effective USDC DC court
proceeding (“Inadequate Housing”). In having been accepted in
“University of District of Columbia”, Anthony Brian Mallgren, petitioner,
sought proper relief in Relief Rescindment (“Mother Court Relief
Request”). A court inadequacy preventing Mother Court Relief Request
fulfillment resulted in Inadequate Housing, and then, this petition.
Id. at 1 (paragraph numbers omitted). For relief, he demands the opening of a “pro se Court of
Claims electronic filing,” and, ostensibly, the institution of a “United States law requiring social
service DoC mail service provider allow mail to be opened, scanned, and sent electronically.” See
id.
Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure. See
Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239–40 (D.D.C. 1987). Federal Rule 8(a) 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 respondents 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, Plaintiff’s vague allegations fall well short of providing notice of any claim or establishing
this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Complaint, and this matter, without prejudice. An
Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
TREVOR N. McFADDEN
Date: December 1, 2025 United States District Judge