Pinzon v. United States Department of Justice

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 3, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2026-1293
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ABRAHAM G. PINZON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 26-1293 (UNA) ) ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ) OF JUSTICE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its 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

1 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 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).

The complaint’s rambling contents appear to allege wrongdoing by the U.S. Department

of Justice under former Attorney General Merrick Garland, the Federal Bureau of Investigation

under former Director Christopher Wray, and the Governor of the State of California, with

respect to plaintiff’s Social Security benefits. Having reviewed the complaint and its

attachments, the nature of plaintiff’s legal claim is not at all clear. Its vague allegations of

criminal activity, judicial misconduct, racketeering and embezzlement simply do not articulate a

viable legal claim.

As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 and therefore will be dismissed,

and his motion for injunctive relief will be denied without prejudice as moot. An Order is issued

separately.

DATE: June 3, 2026 /s/ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge