UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DERRICK ALLEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00344 (UNA) v. ) ) DAVID COVENINGTON, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint

(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP App.”), ECF

No. 2. The court grants plaintiff’s IFP application, and, for the reasons expressed below, it

dismisses this matter without prejudice.

At the outset, the court notes that plaintiff appears to be located in either the District of

Columbia or North Carolina, but he is intermittently unhoused. See Compl. at 1–2, 6–7, 13; IFP

App. at 2. While the court is certainly understanding of plaintiff’s circumstances, the Local Rules

of this court nonetheless require that a pro se plaintiff must provide both their full residence address

in the caption of their first filing or risk dismissal of the case. See D.C. LCvR 5.1(c)(1). Without

this information, the court cannot communicate with plaintiff regarding his case.

In any event, this matter is frivolous. See

(e)(2)(B)(i). “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 plaintiff’s complaint falls squarely into this

category. Here, plaintiff sues about 20 defendants, including his mother, several other individuals,

the state of North Carolina, and North Carolina state agencies. See Compl. at 1–5. Most of the

defendants are not listed with addresses, as required. See D.C. LCvR 5.1(c)(1). Plaintiff alleges

that, at unknown times, throughout North Carolina, unnamed “governmental employees and their

offspring keep trying to set [him] up,” and have been “staging/scheming” to imprison him to stop

him from “selling oils, soaps and other miscellaneous products.” See Compl. at 6–7. He contends

that these bad actors have acted against him by use of “look alikes” who have changed their name

to Derrick Allen to impersonate him. See

As a result, he alleges that he has suffered harm, and

he demands “999 Quad-trillion dollars” in damages and assorted equitable relief. See

Simply put, this court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s 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 the plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and

harassment deriving from uncertain origins.”). As here, a court shall dismiss a complaint as

frivolous “when the 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,

, 1307–08 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Consequently, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this

memorandum opinion.

Date: April 8, 2025

Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge