Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia grants the pro se plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismisses the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court concludes that the complaint's allegations of an expansive criminal conspiracy and other wrongdoing are irrational, wholly incredible, and insufficient to support federal jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint should be dismissed at initial review as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
- Whether allegations that were legally and factually insubstantial deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction.
Holdings
- The complaint was frivolous because it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact and alleged irrational, wholly incredible, and fanciful events; the case therefore had to be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
- The court could not exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint because the asserted claims were so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.
Key quotations
“A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
“A complaint that lacks “an arguable basis either in law or in fact” is frivolous”
“As here, a court shall dismiss a complaint as frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,””
Factual background
Plaintiff alleged that the defendant and numerous others, including judges and a spiritual being, participated in a criminal conspiracy to dismiss his federal lawsuits and deny him the opportunity to intervene in other federal cases. The complaint also alleged domestic terrorism, other crimes, threats, and sweeping religious proclamations, but the court found the pleading rambling, largely incomprehensible, and wholly incredible.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court granted the application, conducted its initial review, and dismissed the case as frivolous because the allegations were legally and factually insubstantial.