PETROZZI v. BOWSER et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TIMOTHY R. PETROZZI, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-03301(UNA)
v. 	)
)
MURIEL BOWSER, 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 or malicious.
As background, “[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).
Here, Plaintiff, who has provided only a general delivery address in contravention of D.C.
Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1), sues an assortment of Defendants, including the Mayor of the District
of Columbia, Metro Police Department officers, a federal judge, federal officials and agencies, and
a grocery store chain, see Compl. at 1–3. The Complaint is comprised of statements predicated on
Plaintiff’s belief that Defendants and other wrongdoers have colluded to hack into his devices,
Case 1:25-cv-03301-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 2

declare him incompetent, declare his repeated lawsuits frivolous, engage in corruption, subject him
to multiple crimes, and to frame him for crimes in an effort to “attack all parts of his life,”
“slaughter the truth to the public,” and disrupt his “enlightenment process.” See id. at 3–16. He
contends that his suspicions have been recently confirmed by his failed attempt to rent a storage
unit. See id. at 3–8. He demands that his records, and his family members’ records, be expunged,
and he seeks “$38,440 duodecillion” in damages. See id. at 16.
As here, the Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a frivolous or malicious
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.’”). As
a result, the Court is obligated to 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 into this category and fails to state a claim for relief or establish this
Court’s jurisdiction or entitlement to relief.
For these reasons, this case is 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-03301-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 2