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

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

2

(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