KHOZA v. NEW YORK CITY et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BORTLE SIPTO KHOZA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02954 (UNA)
v. 	)
)
NEW YORK CITY, 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.
“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).
Plaintiff sues “New York City Industrialists” and “District of Columbia Industrialists.”
Compl. at 2. 	He does not provide names or addresses for the Defendants, nor any of his own
contact information beyond his email address, all of which contravenes D.C. Local Civil Rule
5.1(c)(1), (g). Plaintiff indicates that he is currently unhoused, see id. at 1, and while the Court is
certainly sympathetic of his circumstances, there is no way to communicate with Plaintiff
regarding this case without some sort of address, particularly given his pro se status.
Case 1:25-cv-02954-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 2

Plaintiff’s allegations fare no better. 	Plaintiff’s claims are predicated upon alleged
“pugilistic encounters” caused by “neuroplastic enzymes” in his brain that have been triggered by
“individuals imposing on [his] being with spiritually in sexually promiscuous play as that of a
demon that must kill people as the sole imposition upon [his] conscious[.]” See id. at 4. For relief,
he demands the “[i]nclusion of such, the anatomical makeup of [his] person direct of the cognitive
to physiological response of [his] person,” and “[t]he anatomical segments of [his] being.” See id.
at 5. He also cites, without explanation, to various laws and legal authority. See id. at 3.
The Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a frivolous complaint. Hagans
v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974). A court may 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 v.
Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307–08 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The instant Complaint falls squarely into this
category.
Accordingly, the Complaint and this case are dismissed without prejudice. 	A separate
Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: December 9, 2025
/s/_________________________
ANA C. REYES
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02954-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 2