Dusenbery v. Trump

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 16, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-3957
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) NELSON EDWARD DUSENBERY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-03957 (UNA) ) DONALD JOHN TRUMP, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ )

Memorandum Opinion

This matter is before the court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s affidavit, ECF No. 1, and

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The court grants Plaintiff’s

IFP application, and for the reasons below, dismisses this matter without prejudice.

Plaintiff attempts to open a civil matter by filing an affidavit presented as a letter to the

Clerk of Court. See ECF No. 1. But Plaintiff may not open a civil matter without filing a complaint.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”); In re

Sealed Case No. 98-3077, 151 F.3d 1059, 1069 n.9 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (noting that a civil action

“must be initiated by complaint” (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 3)); see also Adair v. England, 193 F.

Supp. 2d 196, 200 (D.D.C. 2002) (explaining that a “party commences a civil action by filing a

complaint” and “[w]hen no complaint is filed, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff’s

petition”).

Insofar as Plaintiff intended his affidavit to serve as a complaint, it nonetheless fails to

comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires such pleadings 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). This “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-

defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). This ensures the defendant has

“notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555

(cleaned up).

Plaintiff’s affidavit fails to give minimum notice of any cognizable claim or to establish

this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See ECF No. 1 at 1. The affidavit references a case that

Plaintiff previously filed against the President and alleges that Plaintiff is being “held as a political

prisoner because [he] blew the whistle on the largest scandal . . . to hit our country EVER,” and

the government is “still covering up this truth.” See id. These vague and conclusory allegations of

wrongdoing are insufficient to provide “notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it

rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up). In addition, they are also largely frivolous, and the

court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a frivolous complaint. See 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))).

For the reasons above, this matter is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order

accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: April 16, 2026 /s/______________________ AMIR H. ALI United States District Judge