KHOZA v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BONTLE SIPHO KHOZA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02931 (UNA)
v. 	)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
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), 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).
Plaintiff, who associates with “omniverse industries,” sues the District of Columbia and its
“construction workers” and “industrialists.” See Compl. at 1–3. He does not provide addresses
for the Defendant, 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,
Case 1:25-cv-02931-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 3

see id. at 1, and while the Court is certainly sympathetic to his circumstances, there is no way to
communicate with Plaintiff regarding this case without some sort of address, particularly given his
pro se status.
The allegations themselves fare no better, as they are largely, if not entirely, unintelligible.
Plaintiff states, for example, that “the segment of events, later into the morning as the economic in
social validation of individuals, I either pass or respond to in socio-networking of just being around
other types of people, was direct of the rush in my own verbal as the non-verbal in anatomical
commotion of my person, being violated using intellect and force.” Id. at 4. The remainder of the
Complaint consists of more of the same, namely, puzzling ruminations appearing to arise from
Plaintiff’s belief that individuals have infiltrated his mind and body, and causing him to experience
“thought-provoking imagery of murder; manslaughter upon [his] being.” See id. at 4–5. The relief
sought is unclear.
As here, 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.’”); Tooley v.
Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (examining cases dismissed “for patent
insubstantiality,” including where the plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of
surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain origins”). 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, 655 F.2d at 1307–08. 	The instant Complaint falls squarely into this
category.
Case 1:25-cv-02931-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 3

Accordingly, the Complaint and this case are dismissed without prejudice. 	A separate
Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/ ANA C. REYES
Date: December 15, 2025 	United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02931-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/15/25 Page 3 of 3