U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
RYAN M . CONLON , ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:20- cv -02237 ( UNA ) v. ) ) CIA , et al ., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review of p la intiff ’s pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis . The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), by which the Court is required to dismiss a case “at any time” if it determines that the action is frivolous.
“A complaint 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 lacks “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). Plaintiff, a resident of Linthicum , Maryland, sues the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, United States Army, Pentagon, and Department of Defense. He has filed a 23 2- page prolix complaint that , according to him, constitutes a “Civi l Action Case against these federal or military entities for Electronic Harassment of a technology known as Microwave Hearing Effect, or Microwave Auditory Effect [used] to torture, threaten, and harass [him]. ” As a result, healleges that he has been “exp osed to threatening Non

- ionizing radiation [at] High

- levels.” He asks the Court to “subpoena” and investigate defendants and order them to stop torturing him, pursuant to the Torture Victim Protection Act. This C ourt cannot exercise subject matter jurisdi ction 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 a nd 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 dismissed “for patent insubstantiality,” includi ng 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. In addition to failing to sta te a claim for relief, the complaint is deemed frivolous on its face. Consequently, the complaint and this case are dismissed. Plaintiff has also filed a “motion for discovery as evidence” and “motion requesting new legislation to make mind control illegal ,” both of which are denied as they reiterate the same frivolous arguments. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

________/s/____________ Date: September 9, 2020 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge