Cummings v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STEPHEN CUMMINGS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-04357 (UNA) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 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, ECF No. 2. The Court grants the in forma pauperis Application, and for the reasons discussed below, dismisses this case 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A complaint that lacks “an arguable basis either in law or in fact” is frivolous, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and a “complaint plainly abusive of the judicial process is properly typed malicious,” Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

Plaintiff, a resident of New York, has filed a 313-page prolix Complaint, by which he sues multiple defendants here, including, but not limited to, the United States, federal agencies and officials, film directors, and media companies. See Compl. at 1, 5–6. Plaintiff does not provide contact information for many of the Defendants, in contravention of D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1). The allegations fare no better, predicated on Plaintiff’s belief in a widespread conspiracy executed against him by myriad wrongdoers, spanning several decades, borne from “personal acts of vengeance.” See generally Compl. This “corrupt” and “evil” “enterprise” has allegedly manifested in, inter alia, Defendants’ seeding of nefarious political motives, “shielding miscreants,” attempting to murder Plaintiff, “defrauding” of both Plaintiff and “the public,” defamation, theft of Plaintiff’s identity, and appropriation of Plaintiff’s intellectual property, more specifically, his creation of the movie “Titanic.” See generally id. He demands over $500 billion in damages and assorted equitable relief. See id. at 66–69.

As here, the Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a frivolous complaint.

Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (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, 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904)); Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (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.”). A court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992), or “postulat[e] events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind,” Crisafi, 655 F.2d at 1307–08. The instant Complaint falls squarely into this category.

Accordingly, the Complaint and this case are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff’s other pending Motions, ECF Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 15 are all denied as moot. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: March 12, 2026 Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge