Rogers v. The Palm Restraurant Group

Background

Joshua Rogers, who was representing himself, filed the action under the court’s diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Rogers sued The Palm Restaurant, Del Frisco’s, Double Eagle, and Laundry.

The complaint asserted claims described as “sexual harassment, embezzlement, fraud, murder for hire, theft by conversion, organized stalking, ostracism, illegal sale/transfer of ownership to hide assets, election fraud.” Rogers alleged that events occurred in Washington, D.C., between September 15, 2015, and an unspecified date in 2023. He alleged injuries including being beaten with a shovel, and he sought reversal of a sale that he claimed involved a company whose ownership belonged to him. On May 15, 2025, he filed a motion for judgment and a declaration.

Court’s analysis

Because Rogers was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted, sought money from an immune defendant, or otherwise fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that it had to read a self-represented litigant’s filings generously, but that protection did not require accepting allegations that were clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, delusional, or wholly incredible.

The court found that Rogers did not provide plausible factual support for his claims that the defendants assaulted him and his family or committed other misconduct. It concluded that the allegations were irrational and therefore required dismissal as frivolous. The court also concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment, so it declined to give Rogers permission to amend the complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed Rogers’s complaint under the statute governing screening of complaints filed without prepaying fees. It denied his motion for judgment as unnecessary and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate that motion. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action.

The court also noted that Rogers had filed numerous self-represented cases in the district and had previously been warned that he could face a filing injunction if he continued filing complaints lacking merit. The court stated that the warning remained in effect and reminded him that continued abuse of the privilege to file without prepaying fees could result in an order requiring him to obtain permission before filing such complaints.