Chancellor v. Musk

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ANGELICA ANN CHANCELLOR, Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02103 (UNA)

ELON MUSK, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint, ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”), and Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP Application, and for the reasons discussed below, dismisses the case without prejudice.

Plaintiff, a resident of Chicago, sues Elon Musk, DOGE, and the Department of Treasury.

See Compl. at 1–4. Plaintiff’s Complaint is incomprehensible and does not contain any cognizable allegations. Instead, she cites repeatedly, and without explanation, to multiple federal statutes, see id. at 3–5, and then asks the Court to “exercise 31 U.S. Code § 3123 to make credits/refunds,” see id. at 5, but § 3123 does not provide a private right of action, see Williams v. Bank of America, No. No. 24-3245, 2025 WL 2196249, at *4 (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2025) (citing cases); Allston v. Florida Dep’t of Revenue, No. 24-cv-1085, 2024 WL 4988262, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2024), R&R adopted, 2024 WL 4985941 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2024) (citing cases); Desty v. Exeter Finance, LLC, No. 24-02227, 2024 WL 4648252, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 9, 2024) (citing cases), R&R adopted, 2025 WL 928822 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 27, 2025).

2

Furthermore, pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Federal Rule 8(a) requires complaints to contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). “A confused and rambling narrative of charges and conclusions . . . does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort Myer Constr. Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The instant Complaint falls squarely within this category, failing to establish a cognizable claim, or to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

For these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: October 17, 2025 CARL J. NICHOLS

United States District Judge