Anthony Brian Mallgren v. United States
CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
Date FiledJuly 27, 2026
DocketCivil Action No. 2026-1475
JudgeJudge Randolph D. Moss
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANTHONY BRIAN MALLGREN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 26-01475 (UNA)
)
UNITED STATES et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This action brought pro se is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s complaint and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court grants
the application and dismisses the complaint.
Plaintiff, a resident of Bronx, New York, sues the United States, the State of New York,
New York Governor Kathy Hochul, the State University of New York (SUNY), and John B. King,
Jr., against whom no allegations are made in the complaint. Plaintiff recounts his “good faith”
effort “to undergo vocational rehabilitation in New York State as part of the Social Security Ticket
to Work program” and experiencing “pushback from ACCES-VR, part of New York State[.]”
Compl. ¶¶ 2-3, ECF No. 1. He also criticizes SUNY and New Yorkers. Id. ¶¶ 5-9. Plaintiff then
pivots to a request “for accommodation in the District of Columbia, where the greatest elective
modern-day minds congregate.” Id. ¶ 10. He alleges that he has “yet to receive proper
accommodation in the District of Columbia” and demands accommodations from the District for
housing, “vocational rehabilitation,” and employment. Id. ¶ 11.
Although pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), they must comport 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 (1) the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, (2) the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief from the defendant, and (3) the relief demanded. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The District
of Columbia is not a party defendant nor alleged to have a relationship with the defendants.
Therefore, this case will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A separate order accompanies this opinion.
_________/s/_____________
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
Date: July 27, 2026 United States District Judge
2