Massey v. Trump

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: October 31, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-3494
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

NAKISHA MASSEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-03494 (UNA)

DONALD TRUMP, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, “Compl.”1 The Court

will grant the application and dismiss the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

“[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 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.

1 Because only Nakisha Massey signed the complaint and submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis, she is the sole Plaintiff.

1 Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904))); Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir.

2009). Consequently, the Court is obligated to dismiss a complaint as frivolous when, as here,

“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

v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307–08 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

According to Plaintiff, the President of the United States is violating her “1st Amendment

rights to not have a religion,” “is conspiring with the Jewish Gods and them other Gods and spirits

to discriminate against [her],” and is responsible for “making the FBI follow [her] everywhere

[she] go[es].” Compl. at 7. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that the current President is conspiring

with former Presidents to stalk and harass her and to threaten her life. See id. at 8, 11–12. Plaintiff

files this lawsuit against “everybody . . . helping them for not keeping [her] safe and everybody

else in the world safe from the Jewish God and them other Gods and spirits.” Id. at 8, 14.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s assertions are both irrational and incredible. Accordingly,

the Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice. An accompanying Order will be issued

separately.

Date: October 31, 2025 _______________________ CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge