Marie Arnold v. White House

• Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Decided: November 13, 2025
• Docket: 25-5286
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5286 September Term, 2025 1:25-cv-01695-LLA Filed On: November 13, 2025 Marie Encar Arnold,

Appellant

v.

White House, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Katsas, Walker, and Childs, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s July 28, 2025 order be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant’s amended complaint for failure to comply with the pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). See Spence v. United States Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 109 F.4th 531, 542 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (“Enforcement of Rule 8 is largely a matter for the trial court’s discretion.” (internal quotation omitted)). The amended complaint did not set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” which is required to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original). And while appellant contends that she should have been granted leave to file a second amended complaint, she did not request leave to file a second amended complaint in district court. See U.S. ex rel. Williams v. Martin-Baker Aircraft Co., 389 F.3d 1251, 1259 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (affirming dismissal with prejudice where a litigant “never filed a motion to amend” or proffered the contents of a proposed amendment).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5286 September Term, 2025

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk

BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Page 2