The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANGELICA ANN CHANCELLOR,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02103 (UNA)
ELON MUSK, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint, ECF
No. 1 (“Compl.”), and Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The Court
grants Plaintiff’s IFP Application, and for the reasons discussed below, dismisses the case without
prejudice.
Plaintiff, a resident of Chicago, sues Elon Musk, DOGE, and the Department of Treasury.
See Compl. at 1–4. Plaintiff’s Complaint is incomprehensible and does not contain any cognizable
allegations. Instead, she cites repeatedly, and without explanation, to multiple federal statutes, see
id. at 3–5, and then asks the Court to “exercise 31 U.S. Code § 3123 to make credits/refunds,” see
id. at 5, but § 3123 does not provide a private right of action, see Williams v. Bank of America, No.
No. 24-3245, 2025 WL 2196249, at *4 (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2025) (citing cases); Allston v. Florida
Dep’t of Revenue, No. 24-cv-1085, 2024 WL 4988262, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2024), R&R
adopted, 2024 WL 4985941 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2024) (citing cases); Desty v. Exeter Finance, LLC,
No. 24-02227, 2024 WL 4648252, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 9, 2024) (citing cases), R&R adopted,
2025 WL 928822 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 27, 2025).
1
Furthermore, pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jarrell
v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Federal Rule 8(a) requires complaints to contain
“(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir.
2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted
so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the
doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). “A
confused and rambling narrative of charges and conclusions . . . does not comply with the
requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort Myer Constr. Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C.
2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The instant Complaint falls squarely within
this category, failing to establish a cognizable claim, or to establish this Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction.
For these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies
this Memorandum Opinion.
DATE: October 17, 2025
CARL J. NICHOLS
United States District Judge
2