UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DAWN ROGERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civ. No. 25-0733 (UNA) ) ) RAY CROUCH, JR., 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 and this civil action without prejudice.

“A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (quoting Bell

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). A complaint that lacks “an arguable basis

either in law or in fact” is frivolous, Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989), and the Court

cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a frivolous complaint, Hagans v. Lavine,

(1974) (“Over the years, this Court has repeatedly held that the federal courts

are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are ‘so attenuated

and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.’”) (quoting Newburyport Water Co. v.

Newburyport,

(1904)); Tooley v. Napolitano,

(D.C. Cir.

2009) (examining cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality,” including where plaintiff

allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain

origins.”). Consequently, a Court is obligated to dismiss a complaint as frivolous “when the 1 facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,” Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992), or “postulat[e] events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind,”

Crisafi v. Holland,

(D.C. Cir. 1981). The instant complaint satisfies this

standard and, therefore, it will be dismissed without prejudice.

A separate order will issue.

/s/ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge DATE: March 27, 2025

2