Knight v. Bread for the City

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 19, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-3404
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARVIN KNIGHT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-03404 (UNA) ) ) BREAD FOR THE CITY, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP application and dismisses the

complaint.

Plaintiff, a resident of Washington, D.C., sues a non-profit organization in the District of

Columbia. See Compl., ECF No. 1 at 3-4. He alleges “this factual claim been going on since 2009

of June” and suggests that Defendant has violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act without

alleging facts stating how and when. Id. at 4. Plaintiff seeks “lost wages from being denied legal

representation” seemingly to obtain “public benefit[s]” and/or medical treatment. 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. See Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987).

Rule 8(a) 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)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Plaintiff’s vague allegations fail to “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and

the grounds upon which it rests.” Jones v. Kirchner, 835 F.3d 74, 79 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (cleaned

up). Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order.

TREVOR N. McFADDEN Date: November 19, 2025 United States District Judge