govinfo:USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-03932-0

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
 
BONTLE SIPHO KHOZA, ) 
 ) 
Plaintiff, ) 
) 
 v. ) Civil Action No. 25-3932 (UNA) 
 ) 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ) 
 ) 
 Defendant. ) 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
 
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and 
his pro se complaint. The application is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED without 
prejudice. 
Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards” than those 
applied to pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, pro 
se litigants must comply 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 the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction 
depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, 
and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). It “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) (quotations 
omitted). 
Plaintiff alleges that, on November 7, 2025, in an alley off of H Street, N.W., two police 
officers responding to a call that “there’s [a] person with a gun or weapon in the alley . . . 
check[ed plaintiff’s] person, baggage & the surrounding area.” Compl. at 4 (page numbers 

2 
 
designated by CM/ECF). He demands an award of “8 Billion for the infinitesimal anatomical 
segments of [his] person that have been abused, because whilst [he] was back there . . . trying to 
figure out what made [him] special.” Id. 
The court understands the complaint to raise a Fourth Amendment claim, see id. at 3, 
arising from Plaintiff’s arrest and the warrantless search of his person and possessions. But the 
complaint contains far too few factual allegations to allege a plausible claim. “It is firmly 
established that, to comport with the Fourth Amendment, a warrantless search or seizure must be 
predicated on particularized probable cause,” Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565, 573 (D.C. Cir. 
2006), and by alleging that the police officers were responding to a report of a person with a 
weapon in the alley, Plaintiff, essentially, establishes probable cause for a seemingly brief 
detention and cursory search of Plaintiff and his property. 
An Order is issued separately. 
 
 /s/ 
 TANYA S. CHUTKAN 
 United States District Judge 
DATE: June 17, 2026 
 

Passage view · GavelSight