UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
EDWARD C. BROWDER,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:25-cv-2192 (TNM)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se plaintiff Edward C. Browder sues a variety of federal defendants for harming his
reputation by disseminating federal investigative materials to state and local actors. But a few
holes—namely, the failure to state what laws the defendants violated—leave Browder with a
Complaint that falls short of minimum pleading standards. The Court will accordingly dismiss it
without prejudice. Should Browder still seek relief, he may file a new Complaint that complies
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
I.
Browder filed this case against the Attorney General and components of the Justice
Department (collectively, “the Department”) 1 for disseminating federal grand jury materials to
state and local actors. Compl. ¶¶ 7–10, 12, ECF No. 1. Because of that disclosure, these
documents are “embedded in state court records” and have caused Browder reputational injuries
and legal exposure. Id. ¶ 16. To right those wrongs, Browder asks this Court for declaratory
1
Todd Blanche, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Compl. ¶¶ 7–10.
1
judgment, injunctive and equitable relief, and a writ of mandamus. Id. at 5–7. The Department
moves to dismiss Browder’s Complaint or to transfer the case to the Eastern District of
Tennessee. Defs.’ Mot., ECF No. 13. This motion is ripe, and the Court turns to it now. 2
II.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require plaintiffs to provide “a short and plain
statement” of his claims “showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
“The purpose of the rule is to give fair notice of the claim[s] being asserted so as to permit the
adverse party the opportunity to file a responsive answer,” and “prepare an adequate
defense . . . .” Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Though courts hold pro se
litigants like Browder to “less stringent standards” than lawyers for pleading purposes, see
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (cleaned up), even pro se litigants must meet the
minimum pleading standards required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Stoller v.
United States, 216 F. Supp. 3d 171, 174 (D.D.C. 2016).
Browder’s Complaint does not meet this minimum requirement. That is because his
pleadings skip a key step: Browder has not specified what law the Department allegedly violated.
Consider what Browder has alleged. Summarizing his own action, Browder claims that “federal
materials were used by state and local actors without DOJ authorization, redaction, privilege
review, or protective sealing.” Compl. ¶ 13. He continues that “[p]ortions of this content were
incorporated into a state search warrant affidavit submitted to a Tennessee court, compounding
the misuse of protected federal equities.” Id. Later, Browder asserts that these actions
2
Browder also moves for a protective order that asks the Court to appoint a special master and seal swaths of documents. See Mot. Protect. Order, Mot. Appoint. Spec. Master, ECF No. 12 at 6. Given the Court’s disposition of the motion to dismiss, it will deny the motion for a protective order as moot.
2
“violate[d] federal secrecy protections, classification protocols, and grand jury confidentiality
rules.” Id. at 5–6. None of these facts or vague references to legal authorities clarifies what
claims Browder brings against the Department. See Brown, 75 F.R.D. at 498. Rather, Browder’s
allegations amount to the kind of “unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation[s]” that fall short of Rule 8’s bar. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). For
instance, does Browder claim that the Department violated the Privacy Act by disclosing its
materials? See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) (preventing government agencies from disclosing records
maintained on individuals). Does he claim that the Department violated an agency regulation
establishing certain classification protocols? See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (allowing courts to set aside
agency actions inconsistent with that agency’s regulations). And if so, what regulation imposes
the relevant protocols? Browder has not said, so the Department can hardly give a responsive
answer. His pleadings leave too many unknowns to mount a case.
When Browder does mention specific authority, he cites laws allowing courts to provide
various remedies, still without an indication of what underlying legal claims would call for those
remedies. For instance, Browder seeks declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, mandamus
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, injunctive relief, and “[w]histleblower [r]ecognition.” Compl. at
5–6. All of these are forms of relief, not sources of legal entitlement. See Ali v. Rumsfeld, 649
F.3d 762, 778 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (noting that “the availability of [declaratory] relief presupposes
the existence of a judicially remediable right” (cleaned up)). None thus clarifies Browder’s
claims or otherwise fills the gaps in his Complaint.
Seeing things differently, Browder claims that in its motion to dismiss, the Department
“accurately summarize[d]” his complaint, foreclosing possible Rule 8 issues. Opp’n at 4–5, ECF
No. 17. But no one suggests that Browder’s Complaint is too incoherent to summarize. The
3
problem is that one cannot discern what legal claims Browder brings. See Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 n.3 (2007) (noting that Rule 8 requires “fair notice” of both “the
nature of the claim” and “also grounds on which the claim rests” (cleaned up)).
These shortcomings leave Browder with a Complaint insufficient to proceed. The Court
will thus dismiss it without prejudice. Because this dismissal is without prejudice, however,
Browder may file a new Complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in
the appropriate venue should he still seek relief. 3 An Order will issue separately.
2026.08.17
15:23:32 -04'00'
Dated: August 17, 2026 TREVOR N. McFADDEN, U.S.D.J.
3
Despite Browder’s consent to this case’s transfer to the Eastern District of Tennessee, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to transfer the case given the underlying defects in Browder’s Complaint. Aftab v. Gonzalez, 597 F. Supp. 2d 76, 79 (D.D.C. 2009) (noting courts’ discretion to choose among threshold grounds for resolving a case). Should Browder still seek relief, he may file a new complaint in the appropriate venue.
4