U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TYESHA ISOM , ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1: 24

- cv - 01104 ( UNA )
v. ) ) ANTONIO GUTERRES , et al ., ) ) Defendant s
. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the c ourt on its initial review of p laintiff ’s pro se complaint (“Compl.”) , ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis , ECF No. 2. T he

c ourt grants the in forma pauperis application and , for the reasons explained below, it dismiss es
the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (i)

. “A c omplaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) , quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007 )

. A complaint that la cks “an arguable basis either in
law or in fact” is frivolous , Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) , and a “ complaint plainly abusive of the judicial proc ess is properly typed malicious, ” Crisafi v. Holland , 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981)

. Here, p laintiff, a resident of Denton, Texas, sues the Secretary

- General of the United
Nations and the Denton County District Attorney, citing, without any explanation, the Ohio and Texas local codes, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice

. See Compl. at 1

– 3. The complaint is vague and rambling, alleging a wide

- spread conspiracy, and oscillating through disparate topics , including, “UN General irresponsibility,” “Haiti women with drug addiction and AIDS,” genocide,“borrowed money from foreign corporations,” “the NFL Soccer Federation,” online sports gambling, homelessness, “security on [plaintiff’s] properties,” “US Tax payer’s revenue,” and “foreign soldiers” in the United States armed forces. See id . at 6. Plaintiff demands “500 billion dollars to the US federation,” and asks this court to “restore sanity in the US economy[.]” See id

. The c ourt cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a frivolous complaint. Hagans
v. Lavine , 415 U.S. 528, 536

– 37 (1974) (“Over the years, this Court has repeatedly held that the federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are ‘so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.’”) ( quoting Newburyport Water Co. v. Newbury port , 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904); Tooley v. Napolitano , 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (examining cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality,” including where the plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment derivin g from uncertain origins

. ”). A court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous “ when the facts alleged rise to
the level of the irrat ional or the wholly incredible,” Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) , or “postulat[e] events and circumstances of a who lly fanciful kind,” Crisafi , 655 F.2d at 1307

– 08.
The instant co mplaint satisfies this standard

. C onsequently, the complaint and this case are dismissed without prejudice

. A separate

o rder accompanies this memorandum o pinion.

__________/s/_____________ Date: May 20, 2024 AMIT P. MEHTA United States District Judge