Pantchev

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided April 13, 2026·No. Civil Action No. 2025-2786·Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GUEORGUI HRISTOV PANTCHEV, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 25-2786 (UNA)

)

MOLLY C. DWYER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

Memorandum Opinion

This matter is before the court on initial review of Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The court will grant the application, and for the reasons discussed below, dismiss 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)); Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (explaining that courts may dismiss cases “for patent insubstantiality,” including where plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain origins”). 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, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

The complaint consists of scattered insults and inflammatory language. Its allegations are conclusory and lack any factual basis. The complaint is frivolous, and therefore must be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

DATE: April 13, 2026 AMIR H. ALI United States District Judge

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

Pantchev, (D.D.C. 2026).

Pantchev (Pantchev) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport
193 U.S. 561 (Supreme Court, 1904)
Hagans v. Lavine
415 U.S. 528 (Supreme Court, 1974)
Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Denton v. Hernandez
504 U.S. 25 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Tooley v. Napolitano
556 F.3d 836 (D.C. Circuit, 2009)