Dowling v. National Credit Union Administration, 4:24-cv-00490

Plaintiff Angela Dawn Dowling filed 28 lawsuits, mostly against federal and state agencies and individuals, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (and some in Phoenix), almost all of which lacked factual support or legal merit.
The Court previously warned Dowling (October 21, 2024) that continued frivolous filings could result in a vexatious litigant injunction and loss of in forma pauperis status.
Despite notice and opportunities to amend, Dowling continued to file cases summarily alleging serious offenses (e.g., fraud, kidnapping, cyberstalking) without supporting facts or proper jurisdiction/venue ties to Arizona.
Many complaints failed to identify Arizona as the venue, name any defendants residing in Arizona, or establish Dowling's domicile in Arizona; Dowling herself provided addresses in Texas, California, and New Jersey.
The Court consolidated and reviewed all pending and recently filed cases, finding them uniformly frivolous and lacking federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
With due process notice to Dowling, the Court imposed a pre-filing injunction, denied in forma pauperis status, and dismissed all pending actions with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of Pleadings	Alleged serious crimes and misconduct by various entities in conclusory terms	Complaints lack factual allegations; vague, conclusory, improper venue	Dismissed as legally and factually frivolous
Proper Venue	Asserts claims in District of Arizona and elsewhere, often with minimal or no connection to Arizona	No factual/legal basis to invoke venue or jurisdiction in Arizona	Court is not proper venue; subject-matter jurisdiction lacking
In Forma Pauperis Eligibility	Seeks waiver of filing fees based on alleged indigency	Asserts continued abuse of process and frivolous litigation	Denied; all IFP applications dismissed
Injunctive Relief / Vexatious Litigant	Opposes restrictions (opportunity to object)	Requests pre-filing restrictions to prevent further abusive filings	Pre-filing injunction imposed, opportunity for Dowling to object

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleadings must offer more than labels, conclusions, or formulaic recitation of legal elements)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554 (complaints require factual enhancements, not just naked assertions)
Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368 (court may deny IFP at outset if complaint is frivolous)
Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114 (IFP is a privilege, not a right)
De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (articulates standard for pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants)
United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984 (pro se litigant may amend unless amendment would be futile)
Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747 (a person may have multiple residences but only one domicile)
McIntosh v. Maricopa Cty., 241 P.2d 801 (residence vs. domicile distinction)