Dunbar v. Pelosi

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JANIS LAVERN DUNBAR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-00667 (UNA) ) ) NANCY PELOSI et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s complaint and

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court grants the

application and dismisses the complaint.

Plaintiff brings this suit against Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and Attorney Ben Crump.

She identifies Crump as a District of Columbia “corporation.” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff

alleges that at an unspecified time, she contacted Crump by email concerning “Curtis James

Jackson,” id. at 1, an entertainer known professionally as “50 Cent,” id. at 4. According to

Plaintiff, Crump “told” her “to find a lawyer asap,” but “then he goes and hangs with my stalker

and thief at the State Capitol.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that she contacted Pelosi and two other

individuals not named as defendants “about my stalker,” but “they didn’t believe a true story

book[.]” Id. at 3. Plaintiff seeks $100,000,000 from Pelosi and $10,000,000 from Crump, id. at

5, for treating her like “a nobody,” id. at 4.

Although Plaintiff checks the “federal question” box as the basis of jurisdiction, id. at 3,

she does not plausibly plead a claim under “the Constitution [or] laws . . . of the United States,”

28 U.S.C. § 1331, and a “complaint may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds when,” as here, it is “ ‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision.’ ” Tooley v.

Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C.

Cir. 1994)). The Court will, accordingly, dismiss the complaint.

A separate order will issue.

_________/s/____________ RANDOLPH D. MOSS Date: May 28, 2025 United States District Judge