Rogers v. Crouch
This text of Rogers v. Crouch (Rogers v. Crouch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DAWN ROGERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civ. No. 25-0733 (UNA) ) ) RAY CROUCH, JR., 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). The Court will grant
the application and dismiss the complaint and this civil action 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) (examining cases dismissed “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 1 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). The instant complaint satisfies this
standard and, therefore, it will be dismissed without prejudice.
A separate order will issue.
/s/ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge DATE: March 27, 2025
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rogers v. Crouch, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-crouch-dcd-2025.