Theodore Macon Carrington, Jr. v. Jeh Charles Johnson, et al.

Carrington v. Johnson · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · December 2, 2025 · No. Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02926 (UNA)

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia grants the pro se plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis but dismisses his complaint without prejudice as frivolous and lacking subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also denies as moot the plaintiff’s motion to admit federal code violations.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Writing for the Court
Trevor N. McFadden
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Decision date
December 2, 2025
Docket number
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02926 (UNA)
Procedural posture
On initial review of a pro se complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the district court granted the application and dismissed the complaint without prejudice as frivolous and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Standard of review
On initial review, the court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true but required the complaint to contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim. The court also assessed whether the claims were frivolous and whether subject matter jurisdiction existed.
Precedential value
Published memorandum opinion according to the supplied metadata; no reporter citation appears in the opinion.
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

subject matter jurisdictionpleadingscivil procedureelection law

Practice areas

civil procedurefederal jurisdictionelection law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint stated a plausible claim for relief or was frivolous because its allegations were irrational, wholly incredible, or fanciful.
  2. Whether the district court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint.
  3. Whether plaintiff's motion to admit federal code violations remained justiciable after dismissal of the complaint.

Holdings

  1. A complaint must be dismissed as frivolous when its factual allegations rise to the level of the irrational, wholly incredible, or wholly fanciful; plaintiff's allegations met that standard.
  2. Federal courts lack power to entertain claims that are otherwise within their jurisdiction when the claims are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit; the complaint therefore could not support subject matter jurisdiction.
  3. The motion to admit federal code violations was denied as moot after dismissal of the complaint.

Key quotations

A complaint that lacks “an arguable basis either in law or in fact” is frivolous
Indeed, as here, 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,”
The Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s frivolous Complaint.

Factual background

Plaintiff, who was civilly committed at Butner Federal Medical Center, alleged that while working as a freelance consultant in 2020 he witnessed an illegal effort to falsify the presidential election through control of election computers. He further alleged that, after attempting to notify Congress, unidentified bad actors poisoned him twice, prevented medical providers from treating him, and caused him to be unfairly arrested. He sought $39 billion in damages and failed to provide addresses for many defendants.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging that various defendants participated in a scheme to falsify the 2020 presidential election and subsequently poisoned and unlawfully arrested him. The court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, conducted its initial review, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and denied as moot plaintiff's motion to admit federal code violations.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…