# Chancellor v. Musk

> District Court, District of Columbia · October 20, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11173951

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** October 20, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Carl J. Nichols
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11173951

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11173951. Public record. Not legal advice.