- 1 - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________________________ ) LING YUAN HU , ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:12-CV-1640 (KBJ) ) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, CENTRAL ) INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, FEDERAL BUREAU ) OF INVESTIGATION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ) OFFICE OF DIRECTOR FOR NATIONAL ) INTELLIGENCE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ) NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, and UNKNOWN ) NUMBER OF OFFICIALS, AGENTS, AND ) CONTRACTORS OF DOD, CIA and FBI, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff pro se Ling Yuan Hu has filed a thir teen-count complaint against the Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Office of the Director for National Intelli gence, Department of State, National Security Agency, and an “Unknown Number of Officials, Agents, and Contractors of DOD, CIA and FBI” (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff’s f actual allegations include that Defendants “have total control of HU’s computer , her body and her apartment in Taiwan,” and that Defendants have “launched a complete elec tronic war against HU and watched her life and activity every second through hidden camera in order to make effec tive attacks.” Compl. ¶ 17. Plaintiff also maintains that this “electronic war” constitutes “horrible to rtures, brainwash, mind control, political persecution and hu man rights violations.” Id. ¶ 20.- 2 - In her complaint, Plaintiff contends that Defendants possess record s pertaining to the surveillance campaign against her, and that De fendants have withheld, improperly maintained, and made unauthorized disclosure of such r ecords in a manner that violates FOIA and the Privacy Act. See Compl. Counts I-VII, XII-XIII. Plaintiff also alleges violations of her constitutional rights stemming fr om the purported surveillance campaign itself. Id. Counts VIIIXI. Defendants have moved to dismiss the compla int, or, alternatively, for summary judgment. [Dkt. No. 8.] For the reasons that follow, De fendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is GRANTED as to all counts. DISCUSSION Federal courts are courts of limited jurisd iction, possessing “only th at power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited juri sdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the [plaintiff].” Id. (citation omitted). Claims that are so “patently insubstantial” that no federal questio n suitable for decision can be discerned are dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994); see, e.g., Bestor v. Lieberman, No. 03-1470 (RWR), 2005 WL 6814 60 (D.D.C. March 11, 2005) (d ismissing case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) where plaintiff alleged that Se nators Joseph Lieberman and Edward Kennedy were “involved in the irradiat ion of his brain and manipulati on of his thought processes via devices surreptitiously implanted in his head”). “Patently insubstant ial” claims are those that are “essentially fictitious” and “absolutely devoid of merit,” including “bizarre conspiracy theories, any fantastic government manipulations of their will or mind, [or] any sort of supernatural invention.” Best, 39 F.3d at 330- 31 (quotation marks omitted).- 3 - In the instant case, Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden to esta blish the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, even unde r the “less stringent standards” to which federal courts hold

pro se litigants. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The allegations in the complaint, considered in their entirety, c onsist of nothing more than an “e ssentially fictitious” conspiracy theory regarding fanciful and facially impl ausible surveillance of, and interference with, Plaintiff’s life. CONCLUSION Because her claims are patently insubstantia l, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint. Accordingly, Defe ndants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

___________/s/_______________ KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge DATE: May 13, 2013