Tucker v. Trump

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 9, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-1250
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KENDARIUS TUCKER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-1250 (UNA) ) DONALD TRUMP, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on 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

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

1 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).

Plaintiff alleges violations of rights protected under the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and

Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, see Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 3-4, and the

complaint refers to gunshot wounds Plaintiff sustained in Chicago on August 22, 2022, see id. at

4-5, in an incident in which police officers were involved, see id. at 5, medical care he did not

receive, see id., and “defamation of character . . . resulting from being bullied,” id. Plaintiff

demands “relief of 10 billion of dollars of damage to [his] body and mental state.” Id. at 5. He

does not, however, bring suit against the person who allegedly shot him but, rather, sued

President Trump—apparently for mocking, bullying, shaming, and stalking him. Yet, only once

is the named Defendant mentioned, and Plaintiff fails to explain what—in particular—he did.

Plaintiff merely alleges, without substance, that “Donald Trump acted and showed how illegal

and corrupt the system is.” Id. at 4.

As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule

8(a). It fails to put Defendant on notice of the claim(s) against him, as there are no factual

allegations connecting Defendant to any of the events described in the complaint. Nor does the

complaint offer any basis for overcoming presidential immunity from civil suit for damages

based on his official acts—assuming that Plaintiff intends to sue for any such acts. See Nixon v.

2 Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). The Court, therefore, will dismiss the complaint without

prejudice.

A separate order will issue.

/s/ RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge DATE: May 9, 2025