Tanya Sue Chutkan

In Singleton v. Trump, a pro se plaintiff residing in California sued President Donald Trump, alleging that the President had failed to appoint the full six members to the Federal Election Commission as required by statute and seeking a declaratory judgment and order compelling nominations. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint. The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to establish Article III standing, as the complaint asserted only a generalized grievance shared by all citizens about the proper functioning of government rather than a concrete, particularized injury. The decision rested on Supreme Court precedents requiring plaintiffs to show injury in fact, causation, and redressability to invoke federal judicial power.

electionsfederal power

The case involved two Program Coordinators over age 40 who sued the District of Columbia Department of Health under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, claiming age-based pay disparities compared to younger colleagues, denial of promised raises and quality step increases, downgraded performance evaluations, restrictions on professional opportunities, and non-renewal of their positions after they complained to management and filed administrative charges. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It permitted the discrimination and retaliation claims to proceed, finding the allegations of adverse actions tied to age and protected activity sufficient to state plausible claims. The court dismissed the hostile work environment claim, reasoning that the alleged acts spanned years, involved different decisionmakers, and did not form a coherent pattern of pervasive abusive conduct linked to a single unlawful employment practice.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involves a pro se plaintiff residing in Ohio who filed a complaint against the United States, several foreign countries, and various individuals, seeking $500,000 in damages based on allegations referencing fraternity hazing incidents, a terrorist attack, a 1993 life imprisonment, and an alleged cover-up involving the U.S. Marshals and Bureau of Prisons. The court granted the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint, which included over 1,600 pages of exhibits and largely incomprehensible claims. The core reasoning was that the complaint lacked an arguable basis in law or fact and postulated wholly fanciful events, rendering it frivolous and subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

procedure

In Deglaire v. French State, a pro se plaintiff residing in France filed a lengthy and convoluted complaint against the French State and various other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking relief through a document titled as a joint submission to multiple jurisdictions. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the case, finding that the complaint failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 10(b) by not providing a short and plain statement of the claims or grounds for jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that the pleading was excessively long, rambling, and incoherent, failing to give defendants fair notice, and the plaintiff did not allege an exception to the French State's sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, depriving the court of subject-matter jurisdiction.

procedure

In this case, pro se plaintiff Jesse Wall sued several D.C. Superior Court judges, an Assistant Attorney General, and the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, seeking damages based on rulings and actions in prior civil protection order and criminal contempt proceedings against him in Superior Court. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and to amend the complaint but dismissed the entire action. The court held that the judges enjoy absolute judicial immunity for actions taken in their judicial capacity, the AAG has prosecutorial immunity for her role in the proceedings, the FTCA does not allow liability against the United States for Superior Court judges' conduct, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to review Superior Court rulings.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedurefederal power

In Murphy v. Bastiampillai, a plaintiff residing in Maryland sued an official from the Federal Aviation Administration, claiming that the defendant and the FAA improperly deleted his grant applications submitted on behalf of himself and his company, Alkebulan Airlines Corporation, in violation of the Federal Records Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and constitutional amendments, seeking damages and other relief. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaint, determining that the claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had previously filed a substantially similar lawsuit against the same defendant in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, which resulted in a final judgment on the merits affirmed by the Fourth Circuit, sharing the same nucleus of facts and thus precluding relitigation to avoid duplicative proceedings.

procedure

In Frederick v. United States, a pro se plaintiff residing in Maryland filed a complaint in federal district court against the United States seeking $4 trillion in damages, accompanied by a statement of claim that referenced written documents as a U.S. citizen and expressed a need to be better and whole. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. It then dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), concluding that the filing lacked any arguable basis in law or fact.

procedure

Marie Yates, appearing pro se, filed a complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order in federal district court seeking to halt a scheduling order issued in her pending housing case in D.C. Superior Court. The court granted her motion to proceed in forma pauperis but denied the TRO and dismissed the complaint. It explained that federal district courts have limited jurisdiction and cannot exercise appellate review over or enjoin ongoing proceedings in local courts such as the D.C. Superior Court, citing precedents on federalism and jurisdictional limits.

procedurefederal power

In Khoza v. District of Columbia, a pro se plaintiff sued the District of Columbia alleging that police officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching his person and possessions without a warrant in an alley after responding to a report of a person with a weapon. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The court reasoned that while pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards, the complaint failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) by lacking sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim, and the alleged facts actually supported the existence of probable cause for the search.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Sean Shallow suing the United States over allegations of multiple conspiracies by the government, his mother, and others to murder, impersonate, attack, steal from, and falsely arrest him, among other harms, with the plaintiff claiming unusual official positions. The court granted the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The core reasoning was that the complaint's allegations were irrational, fanciful, and unsubstantial, failing to state any plausible claim under precedents like Ashcroft v. Iqbal and lacking an arguable basis in law or fact, which deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

procedurefederal power

The plaintiff, a New York resident proceeding pro se, sued the United States with a complaint containing cryptic allegations about education as indoctrination, courts facilitating fraud, elections lacking accountability, the executive branch creating dependencies, and public interest in artificial superintelligence, while seeking orders to dissolve false protections, unwind dependencies, and discontinue judicial fraud. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiff's in forma pauperis application but dismissed the action sua sponte. The court held that the complaint was frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because it lacked any arguable basis in law or fact, consisted of irrational and unsubstantial claims, and therefore provided no basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

procedure

The case involved a pro se plaintiff suing President Biden, alleging that the military used B-52 bombers, jet engines, and chemical trails to intimidate him at his home and church, and that the President prevented him from reporting these violations, for which he sought $340,000 in damages. The court granted the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) upon finding it frivolous. The allegations described events that were irrational or wholly incredible and lacked an arguable basis in law or fact, rendering them so attenuated and unsubstantial as to deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction. The court therefore dismissed the case without prejudice.

procedurefederal power

A federal prisoner proceeding pro se sued the United States, the U.S. Attorney General, and other federal agencies, seeking to challenge the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2252, the statute governing distribution of child pornography under which he had been convicted in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; he argued that a victim's age is irrelevant and that existing pornography should not be subject to criminal penalties. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiff's in forma pauperis application but dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The court held that the action was an improper collateral attack on the prior conviction over which it lacked jurisdiction, and that any such challenge must instead be pursued via direct appeal or a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court.

criminal lawprocedure

Plaintiff Lauren Greene, proceeding pro se, sought to file a complaint on behalf of an entity called Citizens Against Forensic Psychiatry against the President, CIA officials, a judge, law enforcement officers, and the D.C. Department of Behavioral Health, alleging federal conspiracies involving human trafficking, property theft, false arrests, mental health misdiagnoses, and other harms, while also requesting IFP status and various forms of relief. The court granted the IFP application but dismissed the case without prejudice. It reasoned that artificial entities cannot proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or be represented pro se by unlicensed individuals under 28 U.S.C. § 1654, and that the complaint's allegations were frivolous, irrational, and wholly incredible, depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction under precedents like Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Neitzke v. Williams. The court also denied the motion to amend and the motion to expedite as moot.

procedure

Plaintiff Jesus A. Wayne, Jr. brought a pro se action against William McPhee, whom he identified as the Chief Justice of the World, with allegations of racketeering at an address in Washington, D.C., but without specifying any requested relief. The district court granted the plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis yet dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The dismissal was based on the complaint's failure to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), as it lacked a clear statement of the court's jurisdiction or the basis for the claim, preventing the court and defendant from understanding the asserted claims.

procedure

In this case, a pro se plaintiff residing in the District of Columbia sued the United States, seeking a court order to enforce a supposed rule requiring public-facing PACER filings to be in PDF or JPG format by an April 2026 deadline. The complaint provided no additional facts or context to support the request. The court granted the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the action without prejudice. It reasoned that the vague and sparse allegations failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires a short and plain statement of the grounds for jurisdiction and the claim showing entitlement to relief, leaving the defendant without fair notice of any asserted claim.

procedure

In this case, a pro se plaintiff sued a D.C. Superior Court judge, alleging that the judge had unlawfully confined him at the D.C. Jail in 2012 on false charges of sexual assault and weapon possession, resulting in five years of detention without trial, and seeking $5 million in damages. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The court reasoned that judges enjoy absolute immunity from suits for money damages based on actions taken in their judicial capacity, unless those actions occurred in the complete absence of jurisdiction, and that allegations of error, malice, or excess of authority do not overcome this immunity.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff May Chen sued a defendant identified as Black Perpetrators in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The court granted the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis without prepaying fees. However, it dismissed the complaint and the entire case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). This statute permits dismissal when an action is frivolous or malicious. The order constitutes a final, appealable decision.

procedure

In this case, plaintiff Mousen Yisak Aden, proceeding pro se, sued the United States, claiming to be an heir to royal bloodlines and an immortal son of God entitled to govern the country as a dual throne under biblical references, while requesting a special nationwide vote using device numbers, identification, and fingerprints to install him as commander. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiff's in forma pauperis application but dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court found the complaint largely unintelligible and frivolous because it lacked any arguable basis in law or fact, described irrational or wholly incredible claims, and fell outside the court's subject matter jurisdiction as it was so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be devoid of merit.

procedureelections

The plaintiff, appearing pro se, sued the District of Columbia and Broward County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that their policies, practices, and customs caused ongoing violations of her civil rights, including unlawful detention from a 2013 arrest, denial of access to courts, election interference in 2020 and 2024, and familial separation through false statements and adoption of her child in 2024. The court granted the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The core reasoning was that the allegations were disjointed and conclusory, failing to identify any specific official municipal policy or custom as the moving force behind the claimed constitutional violations as required by Monell v. Department of Social Services, and that certain claims involved election regulation or family matters outside federal municipal liability.

civil rightscriminal lawelectionsfamily law