Elmore v. motley/hagood
This text of Elmore v. motley/hagood (Elmore v. motley/hagood) 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
MATTHEW ROBERT ELMORE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-2274 (UNA) ) NANCY MOTLEY/HAGOOD, et al., ) ) Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court GRANTS the application and, for the reasons
stated below, DISMISSES the complaint and this civil action without prejudice.
The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro
se litigants are held to less stringent standards than are applied to formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even 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). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give
fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted such that they might prepare a responsive
answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res
judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).
1 Plaintiff appears to allege that defendants stole computers, money, vehicles, and real
property, and demands their return. See Compl. at 4. Plaintiff neither identifies the property at
issue, states the location of the property, nor indicates the property’s value. The complaint also
does not provide enough factual allegations regarding the torture plaintiff allegedly sustained, see
id., or demand any particular amount as compensation for his injuries. There are far too few factual
allegations to state a viable legal claim.
As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimum pleading standard set forth in Rule 8,
and it will be dismissed. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
DATE: December 31, 2025 /s/ ANA C. REYES 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
Elmore v. motley/hagood, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elmore-v-motleyhagood-dcd-2025.