Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia grants the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismisses the complaint without prejudice as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court concludes that the allegations are irrational and lack an arguable basis in law or fact, depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint should be dismissed as frivolous because its allegations lacked an arguable basis in law or fact and were irrational or wholly incredible.
- Whether the court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a frivolous complaint under the IFP screening statute.
Holdings
- The complaint was frivolous because its allegations were irrational, wholly incredible, and lacked an arguable basis in law or fact.
- A federal court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint that is frivolous and absolutely devoid of merit.
- The complaint was dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Key quotations
“The instant Complaint falls squarely into this category.”
“Accordingly, this matter is dismissed without prejudice.”
Factual background
Plaintiff alleged that he was a DEA Group Leader and Chief of the United Nations and described purported conspiracies involving his mother, the federal government, and others. He alleged that these conspiracies were intended to murder, impersonate, attack, and falsely arrest him, steal his property, usurp him, and commit other wrongdoing. The court found the allegations difficult to understand and characterized them as irrational and wholly incredible.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a complaint against the United States and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted the IFP application but dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).