Mallgren v. United States

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ANTHONY BRIAN MALLGREN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02884 (UNA) ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and an

Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The Court grants

Plaintiff’s IFP application, and for the reasons discussed below, dismisses this matter for failure

to meet the minimal pleading standards set forth by Federal Rule 8(a).

Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues the United States. Compl. at 1. The

Complaint is nebulous and difficult to follow. See generally id. Plaintiff states

New York originally granted a poor person order against Anthony Brian Mallgren, petitioner (“Attempted Relief”). Anthony Brian Mallgren, petitioner, made an Attempted Relief rescindment request under 28 U.S. Code § 1346 (a)(2) (recommending “District of Columbia” (“DoC”) performcross-district-court communication pre-Supreme-Court) (“Relief Rescindment”). Anthony Brian Mallgren, petitioner, experienced many issues with currency/finance operation/regulation while in DoC, much of which has not yet been resolved. Anthony Brian Mallgren, petitioner, justified leaving DoC in favor of Bronx County due to low quality interaction in DoC and a lack in efficient/effective USDC DC court proceeding (“Inadequate Housing”). In having been accepted in “University of District of Columbia”, Anthony Brian Mallgren, petitioner, sought proper relief in Relief Rescindment (“Mother Court Relief Request”). A court inadequacy preventing Mother Court Relief Request fulfillment resulted in Inadequate Housing, and then, this petition. Id. at 1 (paragraph numbers omitted). For relief, he demands the opening of a “pro se Court of

Claims electronic filing,” and, ostensibly, the institution of a “United States law requiring social

service DoC mail service provider allow mail to be opened, scanned, and sent electronically.” See

id.

Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure. See

Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239–40 (D.D.C. 1987). Federal Rule 8(a) requires a complaint

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 respondents 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).

Here, Plaintiff’s vague allegations fall well short of providing notice of any claim or establishing

this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Complaint, and this matter, without prejudice. An

Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

TREVOR N. McFADDEN Date: December 1, 2025 United States District Judge