Joshua Rogers v. White House

Background

Joshua Rogers, appearing without a lawyer, sued the White House, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, “NY Courts,” Piers McMahon, and Tiberius Fray. The opinion states that Fray is a character from the Harry Potter book series and that Rogers described McMahon as a federal prosecutor in Brooklyn, New York.

Rogers invoked federal-question jurisdiction and identified alleged violations involving privacy harassment, identity theft, and assault. He stated that the events occurred “Everywhere” between 2019 and the present. His allegations included claims that two former federal workers were terrorizing and harassing him, interfering with his medical profile, health care, finances, education, student loans, social-media accounts, and family relationships, and receiving other people’s Supplemental Security Income checks. He asked the court to “make this men stop.”

The court had previously allowed Rogers to proceed without prepaying filing fees. That status required the court to review the complaint and dismiss it if it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or presented claims over which the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. It stated that factual frivolousness may be found when alleged facts are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, delusional, or wholly incredible. The court also noted that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally, but they still must provide a short and plain statement showing an entitlement to relief.

The court concluded that Rogers did not provide plausible factual support for his allegations against the defendants. It specifically noted that the defendants included the White House and Tiberius Fray, a fictional character, and found that the allegations rose to the level of irrationality. The court therefore dismissed the claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

The court declined to give Rogers an opportunity to amend because it found that the complaint’s defects could not be cured by amendment. The opinion does not identify a separate merits determination about whether the alleged harassment, interference, or other misconduct actually occurred.

Litigation history and warning

The court stated that Rogers had filed at least eleven cases without a lawyer in the district during 2024 and 2025. According to the opinion, of the cases that had been decided, three were transferred to other jurisdictions, three were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and one was dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Based on that history, the court found that Rogers knew or should have known about the deficiencies in this complaint when he filed it. The court warned that, if he continued abusing the privilege of proceeding without prepaying filing fees, it could require him to explain why he should not be barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 from filing future complaints without prepayment in that court unless he first received permission.

Disposition

The court dismissed Rogers’s complaint as frivolous and directed the clerk to enter judgment. The order was signed by Louis L. Stanton, United States District Judge.