Noha v. Trump

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: August 5, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-1995
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) OLHA NOHA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1: 25-cv-01995 (UNA) ) DONALD JOHN TRUMP, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, who has submitted at least 17 mostly cryptic complaints in this Court in less than

four months, has filed a pro se Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and an application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2, in the instant matter. Upon review, the Court grants

Plaintiff’s IFP Application, and for the reasons explained below, it dismisses this matter without

prejudice.

Plaintiff, a resident of Maryland, sues the President of the United States and approximately

100 U.S. Senators. See Compl. at 1–27. The Complaint is vague and spare. Plaintiff sets forth a

mere single statement, “The Act.” See id. at 29. No other facts or information is provided, and

Plaintiff demand any relief.

Pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F.

Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Federal Rule 8(a) of 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 defendants 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, as presented,

neither the Court nor the Defendants can reasonably be expected to identify Plaintiff’s intended

claims, nor has Plaintiff established this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3).

For these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies

this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: August 5, 2025 __________/s/_________________ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge