Mykonos v. Mathematica

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 6, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-4025
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STEPHANIE MYKONOS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-04025 (UNA) ) ) MATHEMATICA, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This action brought pro se is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s complaint and

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court grants the

application and dismisses the complaint.

Plaintiff, a resident of Washington, D.C., alleges that “DC’s Mathematica in conjunction

with” the District of Columbia have “collud[ed] while actively promoting violations of the I.N.A.

and U.S.C. on expansion of ‘means tested’ public benefits on DC-soil for homeless single female

illegal aliens and their forthcoming children.” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1. The allegations are far

from clear; however, Plaintiff suggests that “Mathematica’s Medicaid Director . . . crafted such

policy” for personal gain to the detriment of D.C. taxpayers, including herself. Id. Plaintiff claims

that “due to this civil RICO, our homeless single female U.S.A. citizen natives were told ‘no

emergency shelter; come back another night and ma’m [sic] stop calling the E.R. shelter line,’ ”

knowing “there’s no beds anywhere in the District.” Id. Plaintiff seeks an order “to stop” the

District from “processing ‘means tested’ public benefits for homeless single female illegal aliens

with forthcoming children” and “civil and monetary fines.” Id. at 2. The Supreme Court “has consistently held” that a plaintiff raising, as here, “only a

generally available grievance about government,” claiming no specific harm to herself, and

“seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits [her] than it does the public at large does

not state an Article III case or controversy” or establish Article III standing. Lujan v. Defenders

of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573-74 (1992); see DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342

(2006) (“The ‘core component’ of the requirement that a litigant have standing to invoke the

authority of a federal court ‘is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy

requirement of Article III.’ ”) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). And “the defect of standing is a

defect in subject matter jurisdiction.” Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring

dismissal “at any time” the court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction).

_________/s/____________ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS Date: April 6, 2026 United States District Judge