Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia grants the pro se plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court dismisses the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the allegations are patently insubstantial and rest on fanciful claims of a widespread criminal conspiracy. The opinion explains the distinction between jurisdictional dismissal for patent insubstantiality and dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over a complaint resting on patently insubstantial and fanciful allegations of a widespread criminal conspiracy.
- Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.
Holdings
- The court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the complaint's allegations were patently insubstantial, absolutely devoid of merit, and did not present a federal question suitable for decision.
- The court granted Gee's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Key quotations
“When a complaint is “‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision,” the court lacks authority to hear the case and dismissal is warranted.”
“That standard includes cases that are “so attenuated and [in]substantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.””
Factual background
Gee alleged that Mike Johnson and numerous state and federal judges and justices participated in a global criminal enterprise involving child trafficking, torture, cannibalism, racketeering, and misuse of federal funding and judicial proceedings. She sought relief including RICO forfeiture, dissolution of Title IV trafficking incentives, and more than $10 trillion in damages. The court characterized the allegations as patently insubstantial and devoid of merit.
Procedural history
Gee filed a complaint against the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and 130 state and federal judges and justices, together with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted the in forma pauperis motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, concluding that its allegations were patently insubstantial and therefore did not present a justiciable federal question.