Khoza v. District of Columbia

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: October 17, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2433
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BONTLE SIPHO KHOZA,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-2433 (UNA)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Defendant.

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, ECF No. 2. The Court

grants the in forma pauperis Application and, for the reasons discussed below, dismisses this case

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), by which the Court is required to dismiss an action at

any time if it determines that it is frivolous.

“A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A complaint that lacks “an arguable basis either in

law or in fact” is frivolous, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and a “complaint plainly

abusive of the judicial process is properly typed malicious,” Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305,

1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

Plaintiff appears to sue the District of Columbia. See Compl. at 3. He does not provide

any of his contact information beyond his email address, in contravention of D.C. Local Civil Rule

5.1(c)(1), and he indicates that he is currently homeless. See id. at 1. While the Court is certainly

1 sympathetic of his circumstances, there is no way to communicate with Plaintiff regarding this

case without an address, particularly given his pro se status.

Plaintiff’s allegations fare no better. He cites, without explanation, to random laws and

other legal authority, see id. at 3, and alleges that “while [he was] on the court of appeals floor . .

. at 9 AM, [his] consciousness is being imposed upon [and] being raped by the segments of verbal

communication surrounding this floor include complete silence, direct of [him] finding out about

the appeal order of separate current & ongoing care,” see id. at 4. He demands $300 billion in

damages “specific as the reality imposed on [his] consciousness.” See id.

The Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a frivolous complaint. 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))); Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C.

Cir. 2009) (examining cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality,” including where the plaintiff

allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain

origins.”). A court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level

of the irrational or the wholly incredible,” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992), or

“postulat[e] events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind,” Crisafi, 655 F.2d at 1307–08.

The instant Complaint satisfies this standard.

2 Accordingly, the Complaint and this case are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff’s

Motion to Communicate with Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 3, is denied as moot. A separate Order

accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: October 17, 2025 CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge