id. at 5; (2) “fails to set forth facts evidencing proper exhaustion of his administrative remedies,” id.; and (3) “fails to allege any injury suffered by him as a result of Mr. Harrison’s alleged monitoring of ‘HRO personnel’s computers or their emails,’ ” id. at 6. In his opposition, the plaintiff fails to address directly the assertions and arguments advanced in the defendant’s motion to dismiss, but rather attempts to provide the Court additional facts about the situation. See Pl.’s Opp’n. The Supreme Court instructed in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) that the complaint of a pro se plaintiff must be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Richardson v. United States 193 F.3d 545, 548 (D.C.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); see also Haines, 404 U.S. at 520, 92 S.Ct.
recognizing courts special duty to construe liberally a pro se plaintiffs pleadings holding that courts must construe pro se filings liberally holding that courts should liberally construe the requirements of rule 3 holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed recognizing that we construe pro se complaints liberally