Shiheiber v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 1, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2026-1512
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

HANAN SHIHEIBER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 26-1512 (UNA) ) J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis (ECF No. 2), and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1). The Court GRANTS the application

and DISMISSES the complaint.

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

1 (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).

This pleading alleges no meaningful facts. Rather, plaintiff refers to correspondence and

documents filed in other courts, without a statement regarding her supposed entitlement to an

award of $3.3 million. No defendant reasonably can be expected to identify the actual legal

claim(s) plaintiff brings, if a claim even has survived plaintiff’s loss at the state court level. See

Compl., Ex. (ECF No. 1-1 at 39-46).

The Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An Order consistent with this

Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: June 1, 2026 /s/ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge