Khoza v. District of Columbia

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 17, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-3932
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BONTLE SIPHO KHOZA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-3932 (UNA) ) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and

his pro se complaint. The application is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED without

prejudice.

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).

Plaintiff alleges that, on November 7, 2025, in an alley off of H Street, N.W., two police

officers responding to a call that “there’s [a] person with a gun or weapon in the alley . . .

check[ed plaintiff’s] person, baggage & the surrounding area.” Compl. at 4 (page numbers 1 designated by CM/ECF). He demands an award of “8 Billion for the infinitesimal anatomical

segments of [his] person that have been abused, because whilst [he] was back there . . . trying to

figure out what made [him] special.” Id.

The court understands the complaint to raise a Fourth Amendment claim, see id. at 3,

arising from Plaintiff’s arrest and the warrantless search of his person and possessions. But the

complaint contains far too few factual allegations to allege a plausible claim. “It is firmly

established that, to comport with the Fourth Amendment, a warrantless search or seizure must be

predicated on particularized probable cause,” Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565, 573 (D.C. Cir.

2006), and by alleging that the police officers were responding to a report of a person with a

weapon in the alley, Plaintiff, essentially, establishes probable cause for a seemingly brief

detention and cursory search of Plaintiff and his property.

An Order is issued separately.

/s/ TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge DATE: June 17, 2026