FLOYD v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUPERIOR COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ROBERT EUGENE FLOYD, JR., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 	26-0080 (UNA)
)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUPERIOR 	)
COURT, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP application and dismisses the
complaint.
Plaintiff, a resident of Washington, D.C., sues the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia for injunctive relief. He alleges that on January 1, 2026, at 6 a.m., Defendant sent him
a text message reminding him (1) of his next court appearance on January 8th and (2) to contact
Pretrial Services if he had any questions. Compl., ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff “was celebrating the
holiday,” i.e., New Year’s Day, “and did not desire to be disturbed.” Id. Upon receiving the text,
he “immediately panicked,” thinking he ”had committed a crime of some sort,” and his “nervous
system was completely wrecked by [the] reminder.” Id. Plaintiff opines “it is unlawful to contact
a citizen on a holiday to remind him of a court appearance,” the “more appropriate time would
have been the following business day,” and Defendant’s action was an “act of manipulation” like
“Stalking.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff seeks an order compelling D.C. Superior Court “to discontinue the
harassment.” Id.
Case 1:26-cv-00080-UNA Document 3 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Complaints, as here, lacking “an arguable basis either in law or in fact,” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and “postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind,”
Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981), are frivolous actions subject to
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate
order.
_________/s/___________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
Date: April 6, 2026 	United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00080-UNA Document 3 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 2