Flores v. Glover House

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 13, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-4518
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

VALERIE FLORES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-04518 (UNA) ) ) GLOVER HOUSE, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this pro se action transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of

New York, Plaintiff, a resident of Albany, New York, sues The Glover House Apartments in

Washington, D.C., asserting “target harassment by a tenant/guest & potentially an employee.”

Compl., ECF No. 1 at 3. Transferred with the complaint is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court grants the in forma pauperis application

and dismisses the complaint.

In the form Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that during her “8 hour 2nd shift” on an unspecified

date, a “white male tenant or guest came down into the lobby 3 different times[.]” Compl., ECF

No. 1 at 4. She describes the man’s clothing and asserts that on the third occasion “others” were

in the lobby, including “an older white male wearing a shirt that said ‘Redbird.’ ” Id. Plaintiff

seeks “an injunction against” Redbird, “white Lexus owner w/Maryland plates” because the Lexus

was “speeding by me in that area.” Id. As for the amount in controversy, Plaintiff writes “$75k

personal injury.” Id. But in a seemingly unrelated claim, she states that she “was denied housing

elsewhere over a $40 error” she “felt was malicious & false reporting by [an old] landlord.” Id. Although pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those applied to

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), they must

comport with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C.

1987). Under Rule 8, a complaint must contain a short and plain statement of (1) the grounds for

the court’s jurisdiction, (2) the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) the relief

demanded. 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) (cleaned up). Thus, the pleader must allege enough facts to permit a court

“to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., 789

F.3d 146, 150 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). The pleading rules ensure 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).

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts about the named defendant, much less sufficient facts to

give it “fair notice” of a claim and the grounds on which it rests. Jones v. Kirchner, 835 F.3d 74,

79 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order.

_________/s/___________ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS Date: April 13, 2026 United States District Judge