Petrozzi v. Bowser

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TIMOTHY R. PETROZZI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-03301(UNA) v. ) ) MURIEL BOWSER, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint

(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, 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 or malicious.

As background, “[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).

Here, Plaintiff, who has provided only a general delivery address in contravention of D.C.

Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1), sues an assortment of Defendants, including the Mayor of the District

of Columbia, Metro Police Department officers, a federal judge, federal officials and agencies, and

a grocery store chain, see Compl. at 1–3. The Complaint is comprised of statements predicated on

Plaintiff’s belief that Defendants and other wrongdoers have colluded to hack into his devices, declare him incompetent, declare his repeated lawsuits frivolous, engage in corruption, subject him

to multiple crimes, and to frame him for crimes in an effort to “attack all parts of his life,”

“slaughter the truth to the public,” and disrupt his “enlightenment process.” See id. at 3–16. He

contends that his suspicions have been recently confirmed by his failed attempt to rent a storage

unit. See id. at 3–8. He demands that his records, and his family members’ records, be expunged,

and he seeks “$38,440 duodecillion” in damages. See id. at 16.

As here, the Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a frivolous or malicious

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.’”). As

a result, the 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),

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

The instant Complaint falls into this category and fails to state a claim for relief or establish this

Court’s jurisdiction or entitlement to relief.

For these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies

this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: December 9, 2025 /s/_________________________ ANA C. REYES United States District Judge