Jones v. U.S. Department of Transportation

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedMay 20, 2026
DocketCivil Action No. 2025-4430
StatusPublished

This text of Jones v. U.S. Department of Transportation (Jones v. U.S. Department of Transportation) 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. U.S. Department of Transportation, (D.D.C. 2026).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MATTHEW JONES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-04430 (UNA) ) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ) TRANSPORTATION, ) ) 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 U.S. Department of Transportation

for reasons unknown. He recounts the time he “became a licensed driver” at age 16 and asserts,

inter alia, that “[f]or 24 years since,” he has “been the only person driving who is old enough to

be driving. No women or girls have been seen on or near the roads of the USA in all of this time.”

Compl., ECF No. 1 at 4 (Statement of Claim). In the relief section of the complaint, Plaintiff lists

without any context “[a]ttempted murder, slavery, rape, disease spreading [and], massacring” and

“demand[s] $1,000,000 for fraud and risk of death and illnesses and injuries that the Department

caused by giving 100% of its issued drivers licenses to underage youths under the age of 16.” 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. U.S. Department of Transportation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-us-department-of-transportation-dcd-2026.