govinfo:USCOURTS-dcd-1_26-cv-01293-0

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
 
ABRAHAM G. PINZON, ) 
 ) 
 Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
 v. ) Civil Action No. 26-1293 (UNA) 
 ) 
 ) 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ) 
OF JUSTICE, et al., ) 
 ) 
 Defendants. ) 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
 This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s application for leave to 
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1). The Court will grant 
the application and dismiss the complaint 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). In addition, Rule 8(d) states that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and 
direct.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(d)(1). “Taken together, [those provisions] underscore the emphasis 

2 
 
placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules.” Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 669 
(D.C. Cir. 2004) (cleaned up). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of 
the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer, mount an adequate 
defense, and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. See Brown v. Califano, 75 
F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 
 The complaint’s rambling contents appear to allege wrongdoing by the U.S. Department 
of Justice under former Attorney General Merrick Garland, the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
under former Director Christopher Wray, and the Governor of the State of California, with 
respect to plaintiff’s Social Security benefits. Having reviewed the complaint and its 
attachments, the nature of plaintiff’s legal claim is not at all clear. Its vague allegations of 
criminal activity, judicial misconduct, racketeering and embezzlement simply do not articulate a 
viable legal claim. 
 As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 and therefore will be dismissed, 
and his motion for injunctive relief will be denied without prejudice as moot. An Order is issued 
separately. 
 
DATE: June 3, 2026 /s/ 
 CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER 
 United States District Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight