# Mallgren v. United States

> District Court, District of Columbia · December 9, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11217179

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** December 9, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Ana C. Reyes
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11217179

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ANTHONY BRIAN MALLGREN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-03044 (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 pursuant to

Federal Rule 8(a).

Plaintiff sues the United States. See Compl. at 1. The Complaint is vague and sparse.

Plaintiff states only that he “had a wallet go missing when traveling from Atlanta to Houston,” and

that he “has been otherwise negatively affected by criminal culture that is enabled and promoted

by the use of unaccountable currency.” Id. For relief, he demands “[c]urrency phase out of

currencies which do not inherently offer a method of auditable accounting.” 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 ambiguous 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.

Date: December 9, 2025
/s/_________________________
ANA C. REYES
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11217179. Public record. Not legal advice.