CARRINGTON, JR. v. DAVIS et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THEODORE M. CARRINGTON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD DAVIS, et al,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25 - 4470 (UNA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the court is Plaintiff Theodore Carrington Jr.’s complaint, ECF No. 1, and motion
to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The court will grant the application to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismiss the complaint and the case as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
“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))); see Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010
(D.C. Cir. 2009). 	28 U.S.C. § 1915 requires a court to dismiss a case “at any time if the court
determines 	that . . . the 	action 	or 	appeal . . . is 	frivolous.” 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Case 1:25-cv-04470-UNA Document 4 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Consequently, the court is obligated to dismiss a complaint as frivolous when, as here, “the facts
alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 33 (1992), or the complaint “postulat[es] events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind,”
Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
Mr. Carrington appears to be civilly committed. 	See ECF No. 4, at 1, Carrington v.
Johnson, 25-CV-2926 (D.D.C. Nov. 18, 2025). 	He alleges that Defendants—representatives
Donald Davis, Deborah Ross, the Democratic National Committee, and Microsoft,” are liable for
“covering up the biggest illegal power grab” in the history of elections in the United States. ECF
No. 1, at 4. He alleges a conspiracy between Microsoft and the Department of Homeland Security
to consolidate “the power to regulate and certify all Federal Election Results.” Id. 	Because he
reached out to Defendants Davis and Ross and informed them of “these election crimes,” and
because Defendants took no action to report or investigate such alleged crimes, “they are guilty of
Covering Up these Election Crimes, Dereliction of Duty, and Violating the Whistleblower’s
Protection Act.” Id. Mr. Carrington also states without explanation that Defendants are “aiding
the Malicious Prosecution that has kept [him] in prison for 5 years.” Id. He demands “$100 Billion
from each defendant,” along with “criminal prosecution for their crimes. ECF No. 1, at 8. Other
courts in this district has already dismissed similar claims brought by Mr. Carrington as frivolous.
See Memorandum and Opinion at 	1, Carrington v. Johnson, No. 25-CV-2924, ECF No. 3
(D.D.C. Dec. 2, 2025) (dismissing as frivolous Mr. Carrington’s claims that Congress failed to
investigate certain virtual reality headsets); Memorandum and Opinion at 2, Carrington v.
Johnson, 	No. 25-CV-2926 	(D.D.C. Dec. 2, 	2025), 	ECF 	No. 4 	(dismissing 	as 	frivolous
Mr. Carrington’s allegations that Congressional representatives sought to cover up the same
“election power grab,” and that he was unfairly arrested as a result).
Case 1:25-cv-04470-UNA Document 4 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 3

3
The court concludes that Mr. Carrington’s claims lack an arguable basis in law or fact
because his core assertions are wholly irrational. 	See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. 	The court will
accordingly grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and dismiss his complaint,
ECF No. 1, and the case without prejudice. A contemporaneous order will issue.
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
United States District Judge
Date: 	February 24, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-04470-UNA Document 4 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 3