Knight v. Coopera

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: October 17, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2489
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARVIN KNIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02489 (CJN)

COOPERA et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is Plaintiff Marvin Knight’s pro se Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1,

and Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 4. The Court grants the

IFP Application and, for the reasons discussed below, dismisses this matter without prejudice.

Knight sues the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) and MPD Officer Coopera (no

first name is provided). See Compl. at 1, 3–4. His Complaint consists of vague and amalgamated

allegations arising from two separate alleged unlawful arrests and resulting detainments, first in

2015 and then again in 2025. See id. at 4. The Complaint does not provide any supporting details

and is silent as to Defendants’ respective roles in either of the incidents. Knight contends that he

has suffered civil rights violations and incurred emotional harm as well as damages to his finances

and reputation. See id. He does not request any relief. Id.

Pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jarrell v. Tisch, 656

F. Supp. 237, 239–40 (D.D.C. 1987). Here, Knight’s Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8, which

requires a pleading 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). The Rule 8

1 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can

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).

Knight’s “threadbare recitals,” which are “supported by mere conclusory statements,” are

insufficient to state a claim. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Although a pro se complaint is generally

held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it still “must plead

‘factual matter’ that permits the court to infer ‘more than the mere possibility of misconduct.’”

Atherton v. D.C. Off. of Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 681–82 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S.

at 678–79). Knight’s Complaint is a textbook example of threadbare allegations and recitations

that fail to establish his entitlement to relief.

The Court thus dismisses his suit without prejudice. Knight’s Motion to Expedite, ECF

No. 2, Motion for CM/ECF Privileges, ECF No. 3, Motion in Limine, ECF No. 5, and Motion for

Judicial Intervention, ECF No. 6, are all denied as moot. A separate Order accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: October 17, 2025 CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge