The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
VALERIE FLORES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 25-04518 (UNA)
)
)
GLOVER HOUSE, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this pro se action transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
New York, Plaintiff, a resident of Albany, New York, sues The Glover House Apartments in
Washington, D.C., asserting “target harassment by a tenant/guest & potentially an employee.”
Compl., ECF No. 1 at 3. Transferred with the complaint is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court grants the in forma pauperis application
and dismisses the complaint.
In the form Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that during her “8 hour 2nd shift” on an unspecified
date, a “white male tenant or guest came down into the lobby 3 different times[.]” Compl., ECF
No. 1 at 4. She describes the man’s clothing and asserts that on the third occasion “others” were
in the lobby, including “an older white male wearing a shirt that said ‘Redbird.’ ” Id. Plaintiff
seeks “an injunction against” Redbird, “white Lexus owner w/Maryland plates” because the Lexus
was “speeding by me in that area.” Id. As for the amount in controversy, Plaintiff writes “$75k
personal injury.” Id. But in a seemingly unrelated claim, she states that she “was denied housing
elsewhere over a $40 error” she “felt was malicious & false reporting by [an old] landlord.” Id.
Although pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those applied to
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), they must
comport with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C.
1987). Under Rule 8, a complaint must contain a short and plain statement of (1) the grounds for
the court’s jurisdiction, (2) the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) the relief
demanded. 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, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (cleaned up). Thus, the pleader must allege enough facts to permit a court
“to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., 789
F.3d 146, 150 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). The pleading rules ensure 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, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).
Plaintiff has not alleged any facts about the named defendant, much less sufficient facts to
give it “fair notice” of a claim and the grounds on which it rests. Jones v. Kirchner, 835 F.3d 74,
79 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order.
_________/s/___________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
Date: April 13, 2026 United States District Judge
2