U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TYESHA ISOM , ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:24- cv -01106 (UNA) v. ) ) BRETT FREEDMAN , 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

court 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 process 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 Chief of Staff for the National Security Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, a former American diplomat and ambassador, a former United States President, and the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. See Compl. at 1–3, 6. The complaint is vague and rambling, alleging a wide -spread government- led c onspiracy–– initiated during President George W. Bush’s administration, and still in force, to date

–– to surveillenon - citizens, but that ul timately led to the surveillance of U.S. citizens, as well. See id. at 4. The complaint then oscillates through disparate topics , including, the “political agendas,” “emotional jealousy rages,” and general unprofessionalism of the “FISA intelligence service,” “federal government kidnappings,” “extortion damages to the born U.S. citizens,” protecting “families” from “ an unknown foreign monster,” “federalist responsibilities,” “immoral practices of the DOJ Officers and Judges [who] can’t be trusted to tell the truth,” and capital punishment. See id. at 7. Plaintiff demands that this court “cancel the FISA system,” and “hold the DOJ National Secur ity Division federal agency responsible for injuries and misuse of power with a restitution of $1 trillion.” See id. at 4, 7. She contends that this award would be derived from a “lien of settlement” held on her behalf by the Federal Reserve. See id

. T he 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. Newburyport , 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904); Tooley v. Napolitano , 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (examining cases dis missed “for patent insubstantiality,” including where the plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving 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 wholly 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