Williams v. Dreyfuss Management

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 4, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-3028
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CYNTHIA WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 23-03028 (AHA) v.

DREYFUSS MANAGEMENT,

Defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

Cynthia Williams appears to sue her property manager, Dreyfuss Management, based on

allegations of fraud and abuse. Because, after multiple opportunities, Williams has not provided

sufficient notice of her claims against Dreyfuss Management, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8 requires, the court dismisses the case.

It appears that Williams rents an apartment in a building Dreyfuss Management manages.

See ECF No. 8 at 1. In her pleadings, Williams describes herself as a retired senior citizen who has

been “abused by” Dreyfuss Management. ECF No. 12. She refers to “fraudulent contracts,”

including a lease she believes is “fake.” Id. Her pleadings also allege that Dreyfuss Management’s

employees have beaten her, held her hostage, stalked her, broken into her apartment, and left the

apartment a mess. Id.

Williams filed her original complaint in October 2023. After over a year without action,

this court directed Williams to notify the court whether she intended to continue with the case and,

because Williams is proceeding in forma pauperis, ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service. 1 In June 2025, Dreyfuss Management moved to dismiss or for a more definite statement.

ECF No. 8. The court granted the motion for a more definite statement and allowed Williams to

file an amended complaint that complies with the federal rules, directing her to resources for pro

se litigants and cautioning her that failure to comply with the applicable rules may lead to dismissal

of her suit. Williams responded by filing a “motion to continue,” which was illegible and difficult

to parse. See ECF No. 11. The court construed the motion as a motion for an extension of time to

file an amended complaint and granted it. Williams then filed another pleading styled as a “motion

to continue” that was typewritten and legible. See ECF No. 12. The court construes this submission

as a supplemental pleading. In it, in addition to the allegations above, Williams asserts Dreyfuss

Management has violated her rights under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.

Constitution. Id. She claims she has suffered “emotional and physical abuse” and asks for $20

billion in damages. See id.

Dreyfuss Management has filed a response, arguing that the action should be dismissed for

failure to file a complaint that provides sufficient notice of her claims, as required by Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 8. ECF No. 13 at 5. The court agrees.

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This “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) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

555 (2007)). The rule ensures that the defendant has “notice of what the claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.

1 This case was initially assigned to the Honorable Reggie B. Walton and was reassigned to the Honorable Amir H. Ali on November 27, 2024.

2 41, 47 (1957)). A court may dismiss a complaint that fails to adhere to these requirements either

upon a motion or on its own accord. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d

661, 669 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“Rule 41(b) authorizes the court to dismiss either a claim or an action

because of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Federal Rules.”).

The court acts with extra care in reviewing a pro se complaint, construing the allegations

liberally and “in light of all filings.” Ho v. Garland, 106 F.4th 47, 50 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (quotation

marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 152 (D.C. Cir.

2015)). However, pro se litigants must still comply with the applicable rules. See Jarrell v. Tisch,

656 F. Supp. 237, 239–40 (D.D.C. 1987).

Here, Williams’ pleadings, including her original complaint and subsequent submissions,

do not meet Rule 8’s minimal requirement to provide notice of what her claims are. After multiple

opportunities, Williams has not alleged facts stating when, where and how Dreyfuss Management

wronged her, let alone articulated a plausible basis for the extraordinary damages sought.

The court accordingly dismisses this action without prejudice for failure to give the notice

that Rule 8 requires. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

AMIR H. ALI United States District Judge

Date: November 4, 2025