The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
HANAN SHIHEIBER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 26-1512 (UNA)
)
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review of 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.
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
1
(D.C. Cir. 2004) (cleaned up). 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).
This pleading alleges no meaningful facts. Rather, plaintiff refers to correspondence and
documents filed in other courts, without a statement regarding her supposed entitlement to an
award of $3.3 million. No defendant reasonably can be expected to identify the actual legal
claim(s) plaintiff brings, if a claim even has survived plaintiff’s loss at the state court level. See
Compl., Ex. (ECF No. 1-1 at 39-46).
The Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An Order consistent with this
Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
DATE: June 1, 2026 /s/
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge
2