A federal court has dismissed a case brought by Nelson Crouch against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser. The court ruled that Crouch's claims, which involved alleged violations of his First Amendment rights, were dismissed due to a lack of jurisdiction and failure to properly serve the DOJ. This ruling affects Crouch's ability to pursue his claims in court.
Crouch, who represented himself in this case, filed his complaint on October 12, 2026, under Civil Action No. 2025-2212. He claimed that his arrest and prosecution violated his rights to free speech. The case arose after Crouch participated in protests against “Gender Affirmative Care for Minors,” which he opposed. He used the court proceedings as a platform to express his views on the matter.
The court’s opinion, issued by Judge Randolph D. Moss, noted that Crouch had failed to provide proof of service to the DOJ, which is required for the court to have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. The court had previously warned Crouch that failure to provide this proof could lead to dismissal of his claims. Despite being given an extended deadline, Crouch did not comply.
In its ruling, the court stated, “Plaintiff has never provided proof to the Court of service upon the Department of Justice, despite being afforded an extended period of time in which to do so.” The court also highlighted that Crouch’s opposition to the DOJ's motion to dismiss did not address the grounds for dismissal raised by the DOJ, which included a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Judge Moss emphasized that Crouch's claims regarding the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) were also dismissed because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. The court explained that, “A plaintiff seeking to assert claims under the FTCA... must ‘allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction,’ including ‘that he exhausted administrative remedies.’” This failure to follow proper legal procedures contributed to the dismissal of the case.
The impact of this ruling is significant for Crouch, as it effectively ends his legal battle against the DOJ and other defendants in this case. It also serves as a reminder to other individuals considering similar legal actions that proper service and adherence to procedural rules are crucial for their cases to proceed. The court’s decision reinforces the importance of following established legal protocols when filing a complaint.
This ruling does not set a new legal precedent but does highlight the necessity for plaintiffs to understand the legal requirements for filing a case. It underscores the consequences of failing to adhere to procedural rules, which can lead to the dismissal of claims, regardless of their merit.
Looking ahead, Crouch has the option to appeal this ruling if he believes there are grounds to do so. However, the court filing did not indicate whether he plans to pursue an appeal. There are no related cases pending that would affect this ruling.