Cancel v. Department of Health and Human Services
This text of Cancel v. Department of Health and Human Services (Cancel v. Department of Health and Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JOSÉ L. CANALES CANCEL,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-03397 (UNA)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint, ECF No. 1, and application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court grants the application and dismisses the
Complaint without prejudice.
Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Jarrell v. Tisch,
656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987), and Rule 8 requires complaints 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, 677–79 (2009). A complaint that is “full of irrelevant and confusing material” will
fail the Rule’s standard, and so will “a complaint that contains an untidy assortment of claims that
are neither plainly nor concisely stated, nor meaningfully distinguished from bold conclusions,
sharp harangues and personal comments.” Jiggetts v. D.C., 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017),
aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. D.C., No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017) (citation
omitted). If a complaint fails to comport with the standards of Rule 8, the court may dismiss the
pleading or the action. Id.
1 As drafted, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in
Rule 8(a). It rambles from topic to topic, describing applications for public assistance, medical
appointments, instances of discrimination, and other matters, without managing to articulate a
viable legal claim or provide Defendant with adequate notice of the claim(s) brought against it.
The Court therefore dismisses the Complaint without prejudice.
A separate Order will issue.
DATE: November 5, 2025 CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Cancel v. Department of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cancel-v-department-of-health-and-human-services-dcd-2025.