Owens v. United States

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: August 28, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-1804
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JORDAN OWENS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-1804 (UNA) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of Plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and his pro se complaint (ECF No. 1). The Court grants the

application and dismisses the complaint without prejudice.

“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.

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

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

facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,” Denton v. Hernandez,

1 504 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).

Plaintiff alleges that he “was cited for a traffic violation (reckless driving) under

circumstances that . . . should have been prevented by implementation of modern automated

driving systems.” Compl. ¶ 10. He claims to have “created platforms . . . with infrastructure

capable of enhancing national operational standards in health, insurance, and transportation

sectors,” id. ¶ 13, and to have “submitted a formal proffer of his work via mechanics lien

documentation to federal entities, identifying public-sector value of national significance,” id.

¶ 14. Plaintiff’s “platforms and insights have not been met with due consideration by federal

authorities, effectively stifling reform and reinforcing the conditions under which arbitrary

enforcement continues.” Id. ¶ 15. He blames the citation on “systemic failures in regulation and

implementation of safety-enhancing technologies,” id. ¶ 11, and alleges that the federal

government deprived him, essentially, of a defense to the traffic citation, thereby violating his

rights to due process and equal protection, see id. ¶¶ 16-17, 20, and causing him “reputational,

procedural and economic harm,” id. ¶ 21. Thus, Plaintiff faults the federal government for his

own conduct, and cites no legal authority for the proposition that the federal government is

obliged to entertain and adopt his proposals.

The Court concludes that the instant complaint is frivolous, as it lacks an arguable basis

in law. The complaint and this civil action will be dismissed without prejudice. A separate order

will issue.

DATE: August 28, 2025 /s/ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge