# McKeeman v. Chaney

> District Court, District of Columbia · June 1, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11335457

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** June 1, 2026
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Christopher R. Cooper
- **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/11335457

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RITA McKEEMAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 26-1273 (UNA)
)
)
DICK CHANY, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF

No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The Court grants the application and dismisses the

complaint without prejudice.

The Court holds a pro se complaint to a “less stringent standard[]” than is applied to a

pleading drafted by a lawyer. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, a pro se litigant

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). The Rule 8 standard

ensures 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).

1
The Court dismisses the complaint for the simple reason that there are no factual allegations

supporting an actual legal claim, see Compl. at 4, or this Court’s jurisdiction over it, see id. at 3.

Missing, too, is a demand for relief. See id. at 4.

As drafted, the complaint falls well short of Rule 8’s minimal pleading standard, and the

Court will dismiss it without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: June 1, 2026 /s/
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11335457. Public record. Not legal advice.