Full Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STEPHANIE MYKONOS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-01597 (UNA) ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and an 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, it dismisses this matter without prejudice. Plaintiff, a resident of the District, sues the United States. See Compl. at 1–2. The Complaint is vague and sparse. Plaintiff asks the Court to, “as a matter of principle,” enforce “Rule #38 on the disable’s view of public-facing-PACER filings . . . as PDF/JPG by April, 2026 Fed. Deadline.” See id. at 3–4. No other supporting facts or context is provided. 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). Federal Rule 8(a) requires a complaint 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 respondents 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). Here, Plaintiff’s bare and ambiguous allegations fall well short of providing sufficient notice of any claim. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Complaint, and this matter, without prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. Date: June 16, 2026 Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge