Jones v. Delaware State Police Federal Credit Union

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedMay 20, 2026
DocketCivil Action No. 2025-4434
StatusPublished

This text of Jones v. Delaware State Police Federal Credit Union (Jones v. Delaware State Police Federal Credit Union) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jones v. Delaware State Police Federal Credit Union, (D.D.C. 2026).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MATTHEW JONES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-04434 (UNA) ) ) DELAWARE STATE POLICE FEDERAL ) CREDIT UNION, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

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

application and dismisses the complaint.

Plaintiff, a resident of Greenwood, Delaware, sues the Delaware State Police Federal Credit

Union in Georgetown, Delaware. Allegedly, from 1998-2001, Plaintiff’s salary was “paid at the

Department of Elections in Georgetown DE.” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 4. But in 2001, “the Delaware

State Police removed” Plaintiff’s “paycheck involuntarily with demands, gun violence, rape, and

property destruction” and has “possessed” the paycheck since 2001. Id. Plaintiff states “[w]hen I

attempted to recover my check in 2001, at their bank, with the State Representative and the State

Senator, we were all shot and killed and our bodies were raped. None of us were paid.” Id. The

Relief section of the Complaint consists of unrelated ramblings but circles back to the theme

concluding: “The paycheck that I am issued by the USA is $250,000 annually. I have been unable

to possess it since the Delaware State Federal Credit Union has taken from the Department of

Elections in 2001.” Id. Complaints, as here, lacking “an arguable basis either in law or in fact,” Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and “postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind,”

Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981), are frivolous actions subject to

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate

order.

_________/s/______________ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER Date: May 20, 2026 United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Salvatore G. Crisafi v. George E. Holland
655 F.2d 1305 (D.C. Circuit, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jones v. Delaware State Police Federal Credit Union, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-delaware-state-police-federal-credit-union-dcd-2026.