Knight v. Home Depot

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: December 15, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2914
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARVIN KNIGHT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02914 (UNA) ) HOME DEPOT, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint

(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The

Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP Application, and for the reasons discussed below, it dismisses the

Complaint, and this matter, without prejudice.

Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues Home Depot, see Compl. at 1–2, but

fails to provide an address for Defendant, among other missing required contact information, in

contravention of D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1). In addition, Plaintiff, who was perhaps

employed by a Home Depot located somewhere in the District, see id. at 4, broadly alleges that he

suffered verbal and physical threats constituting “workplace harassment” that has caused him

emotional distress for “two years of this and three years and some day of working Sept. 5, 2021.”

See id. at 4. He also appears to allege that he was injured at work, but Defendant did not pay his

medical claim. See id. The relief sought, if any, is unstated.

Federal Rule 8(a) requires complaints 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, 678-79

(2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668–71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 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). Notably, “[a] confused and rambling narrative of

charges and conclusions . . . does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort

Myer Constr. Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted).

The instant Complaint falls within this category. Plaintiff does not cite to any legal

authority and ultimately fails to provide Defendants or the Court with adequate notice of a claim.

See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 682. Little to no context or supporting details are provided. For these

reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff’s other pending Motions, ECF Nos. 4,

5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, are all denied as moot. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: December 15, 2025 /s/_________________________ ANA C. REYES United States District Judge