Judge Dismisses Ambrose Lawsuit Over False Poverty Claim
A federal judge dismissed Christopher Ambrose’s defamation lawsuit against psychiatrist Dr. Bandy X. Lee on April 15, 2026, finding that his sworn claim of poverty was untrue — and that the law left her no choice but to throw the case out.
Judge Sarala V. Nagala’s order, filed in U.S. District Court in Connecticut, came one day after Ambrose submitted his financial records under seal. The judge reviewed them and found they directly contradicted the poverty affidavit Ambrose had filed in March 2025 to avoid paying a $405 filing fee.
The case is dismissed without prejudice, meaning Ambrose may refile — if he pays the fee this time.
What He Swore and What He Had
In his March 2025 in forma pauperis affidavit, Ambrose swore he had $294.98 in cash, no income from any source in the prior twelve months, and no stocks, bonds, or securities.
The financial records he submitted to the court told a different story.
His Fidelity IRA showed substantial stock holdings — directly contradicting his sworn statement that he owned no stocks, bonds, or securities.
His supplemental declaration, which the judge ordered unsealed, admitted he received a residual royalty payment of $169.45 in November 2024. That contradicted his sworn claim of zero income from business, profession, self-employment, or any other source in the twelve months before he filed.
The judge was direct. Ambrose’s explanations did not hold up. He argued that he thought retirement accounts were excluded from reportable assets because federal student aid guidelines treat them that way.
The judge rejected this: the IFP application posed a direct question about stocks, bonds, and securities, with no such carve-out. She also noted that Ambrose is a suspended attorney and is not entitled to the same leniency afforded to ordinary pro se litigants unfamiliar with court procedures.
The Asset Liquidation Document
Among the documents Ambrose submitted under seal was one he labeled “Summary of Asset Liquidation and Corresponding Bank Deposits” — his description, listed in his public motion to seal filed April 14.
The full list of what he submitted:
Eyes Above Productions, Inc. banking statements
Personal banking statements
The Summary of Asset Liquidation and Corresponding Bank Deposits
Fidelity Investment statements
His residential lease
The Asset Liquidation Summary was his attempt to explain bank deposits the court would see — deposits he intended to characterize as proceeds from selling assets rather than income. The problem was that he had sworn he had no assets to sell. The explanation required proving the existence of assets he had affirmatively denied owning.
Whether the deposits were income or asset proceeds, either answer proved the poverty claim was false.
The Rent
The lease Ambrose submitted also confirmed what Mia Ambrose had alleged in her sworn declaration: his rent on the beachfront property at 153 Middle Beach Road in Madison, Connecticut, is $3,750 per month. On his poverty affidavit, he listed it as $2,450 — a difference of $1,300 every month. His explanation to the court — that there was “technical confusion between gross and net rental obligations” — found no support in the lease itself, which states a single figure: $3,750.
What the Judge Did and Did Not Do
The judge dismissed the case without prejudice. She found that outright dismissal with prejudice was not warranted, given that most of Ambrose’s underlying claims had survived Lee’s earlier motion to dismiss — meaning if he pays the filing fee, he may attempt to refile.
She declined to make a criminal referral but noted that Lee is free to do so herself.
She denied Lee’s request for attorney’s fees, as Lee is proceeding pro se, and made no showing that litigating the case cost her income.
What Remains Open
The judge’s decision not to refer the matter for criminal investigation does not close the door. Lee retains the right to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s office directly. Separately, the SNAP fraud allegations documented in Mia Ambrose’s sworn declaration — and the timeline showing Ambrose collected benefits in Mia’s name for approximately 19 months after she left his household — remain outside the scope of this civil proceeding.
Ambrose filed the case on March 17, 2025. It lasted just under thirteen months.
Ambrose Claimed SNAP Benefits for a Daughter Who Never Lived There
