The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AARON BLAKE RABEL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 26-0859 (UNA)
)
CITY OF PASADENA, TX, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on initial review of plaintiff’s application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The Court will grant
the application and dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards” than those
applied to pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, pro
se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp.
237, 239 (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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations
omitted). In addition, Rule 8(d) states that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and
direct.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(d)(1). “Taken together, [those provisions] underscore the emphasis
placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules.” Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 669
(D.C. Cir. 2004) (cleaned up). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of
1
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 brings this civil action against the City of Pasadena, Texas. See Compl. at 2.
The nature of plaintiff’s legal claims is unclear. The complaint’s Statement of Claim reads:
REQUEST OF COMMUNICATIONS, APPOINTMENT OF
MASTERS/MAGISTRATE PRETRIAL CONFERENCES
CONFER[ENCES], PRE-TRIAL EXAMINATION FOR
PROPOSED CONCEPTS OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS VS.
LIABILITY
Id. at 4. Missing, then, is a statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief, and plaintiff’s
demand for “INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, WITSEC,” id., is not meaningful.
The Court concludes that the complaint fails to meet Rule 8’s minimal standard, and
dismisses the complaint without prejudice. A separate order will issue.
/s/
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge
DATE: April 14, 2026
2