Matthews v. Central Collections Unit Office of Fnance and Treasury

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 13, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2026-0404
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ROBERT R. MATTHEWS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 26-0404 (UNA) ) CENTRAL COLLECTIONS UNIT OFFICE ) OF FINANCE & TREASURY, ) ) Defendant. )

Memorandum Opinion This matter is before the court on initial review of Plaintiff’s application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The court will grant the

application and dismiss the complaint without prejudice.

Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards” than those applied

to pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, pro se litigants

must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239

(D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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) (quotations omitted). In addition, Rule

8(d) states that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

“Taken together, [those provisions] underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the

federal pleading rules.” Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 669 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (cleaned up). The

Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they 1 can prepare a responsive answer, mount an adequate defense, and determine whether the doctrine

of res judicata applies. See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiff characterizes his complaint as “a report of misuse of government resources

including utilization of government electronic radio-frequency (RF) equipment for the purpose of

committing a crime of continuously conducting an illegal search and seizure impersonating a

police officer without a court order or subpoena signed by a Judge, stalking criminal harassment

and interstate stalking.” ECF No. 1 at 5. He cites provisions of the District of Columbia Code and

police reports, yet it is unclear whether or how they relate to this case. Without a statement of claim

showing an entitlement to relief and a demand for relief, this complaint fails to meet Rule 8’s

minimum pleading standard.

The court, therefore, will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. A separate order

accompanies this memorandum opinion.

/s/ AMIR H. ALI United States District Judge DATE: April 13, 2026