Williams v. Unknown
This text of Williams v. Unknown (Williams v. Unknown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
) ALFREDA DENISE WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-04113 (UNA) ) IRENE UNKNOWN, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ )
Memorandum Opinion
Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint, an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”), and a motion for temporary restraining order. The court grants Plaintiff’s IFP application,
denies Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order, and dismisses this matter without
prejudice.
Plaintiff, a D.C. resident, sues a defendant identified only as “Irene (Unknown),” whom
Plaintiff alleges is a “system hacker.” ECF No. 1 at 1–2. Apart from listing the parties, the
complaint is left blank. See id. at 1–5. The complaint attaches documents related to cases that
Plaintiff appears to have filed in D.C. Superior Court, in which she alleged that she was being
stalked by a woman who followed her from Florida to D.C. See id. at 7–36.
Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction. A party seeking relief in federal
court must provide “a short and plaint statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3). Here, Plaintiff has not stated any grounds for this court’s jurisdiction, and the court
cannot independently discern a basis for jurisdiction from the facts provided. See Johnson v. Robinson, 576 F.3d 522, 522 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“[F]ederal court jurisdiction must
affirmatively appear clearly and distinctly.”) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is
granted. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order, ECF No. 3, is denied. Plaintiff’s
complaint, ECF No. 1, and this case are dismissed without prejudice. A separate order
accompanies this memorandum opinion.
Date: April 14, 2026 /s/______________________ AMIR H. ALI United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Williams v. Unknown, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-unknown-dcd-2026.