Mykonos v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJune 16, 2026
DocketCivil Action No. 2026-1597
StatusPublished

This text of Mykonos v. United States (Mykonos v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mykonos v. United States, (D.D.C. 2026).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STEPHANIE MYKONOS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-01597 (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, it dismisses this matter without

prejudice.

Plaintiff, a resident of the District, sues the United States. See Compl. at 1–2. The

Complaint is vague and sparse. Plaintiff asks the Court to, “as a matter of principle,” enforce “Rule

#38 on the disable’s view of public-facing-PACER filings . . . as PDF/JPG by April, 2026 Fed.

Deadline.” See id. at 3–4. No other supporting facts or context is provided.

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 bare and ambiguous allegations fall well short of providing sufficient notice of

any claim.

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

Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

Date: June 16, 2026

Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Ciralsky v. Central Intelligence Agency
355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Circuit, 2004)
Jarrell v. Tisch
656 F. Supp. 237 (District of Columbia, 1987)
Brown v. Califano
75 F.R.D. 497 (District of Columbia, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mykonos v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mykonos-v-united-states-dcd-2026.