Wilson v. Social Security Office

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 18, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2724
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BARBARAELLEN WILSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02724 (UNA) SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint

(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No.

2. The Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP Application and, for the reasons discussed below, dismisses

this matter without prejudice.

Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, is suing the Social Security Administration,

two of its officials, and a smattering of its individual offices––located in the District of Columbia,

Maryland, and California. See Compl. at 1–2, 7–9. The Complaint is, at times, illegible, and

where they are legible, the allegations are vague, disjointed, and rambling, making Plaintiff’s

intended claims quite difficult to identify. The pleading is, essentially, a vague chronicle of every

slight Plaintiff has allegedly endured in pursuing SSA benefits over the course of a decade, across

multiple jurisdictions. See generally id. She demands equitable relief and damages. See id. at

10–11.

Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure. See

Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239–40 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure requires complaints to contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the

court’s jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky

v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants

receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an

adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano,

75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiff’s allegations are neither clear nor direct, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1), and the

paragraphs are not limited to a single set of circumstances, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). When, as

here, a pleading “contains an untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely

stated, nor meaningfully distinguished from bold conclusions, sharp harangues and personal

comments [,]” it does not fulfill the requirements of Rule 8. Jiggetts v. Dist. of Columbia, 319

F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017

WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017). Put differently, “[a] confused and rambling narrative of

charges and conclusions . . . does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort

Myer Constr. Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). Plaintiff’s Complaint falls squarely into this category, failing to provide the Court or the

Defendants with adequate notice of a claim. As pleaded, it is also impossible to assess whether

res judicata applies, which is especially relevant here, because Plaintiff cites to previous cases that

she has filed against the SSA. See Compl. at 9.

More, any cognizable claim here likely falls under the judicial review provision of the

Social Security Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Friedman v. Sebelius, 686 F.3d 813, 826

(2012) (reiterating that “Section 405(h) [of 42 U.S.C.] . . . makes [42 U.S.C.] § 405(g) the exclusive

avenue for judicial review of administrative decisions”) (quoting Nat’l Kidney Patients Assoc. v.

Sullivan, 958 F.2d 1127, 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)). But Plaintiff fails to clearly identify the “final decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security,” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), that she challenges, or to allege sufficient facts from which the

Commissioner may reasonably identify the decision being challenged.

Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Complaint, and this matter, without prejudice. An

Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

SO ORDERED.

TREVOR N. McFADDEN Date: November 18, 2025 United States District Judge