Whil e Plaintiff consistently uses the ter

m “we” throug hout her c omplaint, this ref ere nce 1 appea rs to be to a “ universal we ,” as she is the only plaintiff in this action. Al l c itatio ns to t

he c omp la int

are to t he re le va nt p a g e numbe rs of

the do c ume nt, a s it 2 appea rs on the public docke t. WANDA PRI

NCE, Plaintiff,
v. BEV ERL Y PURDUE and TI MO TH Y G EI THNE R, De fe nd ants
. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

Civil Action No. 10-240 ( CKK)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION (F ebrua ry 24, 2010) P l ai n t i ff W an d a P ri n ce , p ro ce ed i n g pr o s e , filed the a bove-c aptioned ac tion on Febr uary 16, 2010. The e x act nature of Plaintiff’ s complaint is difficult to discern. Indeed, the complaint itself is composed almost entirely of var ious incohere nt reque sts for re lief made without refe renc e to any underlying f

actua l alleg ations identifying a lleg ed wr ong doing by Def endants or to a

ny leg al authority supporting a

n awa rd of the r equeste d relief

. Construing the pro se c omp la int lib e ra lly , it appea rs that Plaintiff makes the f ollowing six requests for r elief: First, she r equests that “w e excavate the py ramid in Virg inia to find out the truth . . . 1 [ab out] our s tatus sp e akin g fo r A fr ic ans of Af ri c an a nc e str y .” Com pl. a t 3. Pla int if

f a pp e ars to 2 identify the “py ramid” r efe rre d to in this reque st as the “Ge org e Washing ton Mosaic [ sic ] Temple” in Virg inia, the excavation of which Plaintiff asser ts will “tell what our fore fathe rs knew.” Id.To the extent these alleg ations may be re ad as r equestingcer tain information under

the 3 Fr eedom of

I nformation Ac t (“F OI A”) , 5 U.S.C. § 522, the Court notes that Pl aintiff has not a lle g e d th a t sh e ma de any pr ior re qu e sts un de r t

hat A c t th a t w ou ld f

or m th e ba sis fo r a

via ble 2 Plaintiff provides no furthe r explanation of this request. See id. Second, Plaintiff states, without any expli cation, that she “ need[s] t o understand where the additional leg islation for the law of the Interna l Revenue Ser vice is.” Id. Th ir d, sh e “ re qu e st[s ] that si x men be te rm inate d f

ro m th e ir g ua rd ian p os iti on s b e c a

us e they have no vir

tue.” Id. Plaintiff does not identify these six m en by

name nor indicate in what “guardia n positions” they

are employ ed. See id. As for the actions that alleg edly underlie he r
c la im tha t th e se unname d in div idu a ls “ have no vir tue ,” Pla int if

f a sse rt s o nly

that th e se ind ivi du a ls “close d our business bec ause w e had not done our taxes but we wer e not g iven a c hance for due proce ss and we did not owe any taxes.” Id. at 3-4. She doe s not provide any fac ts further elucidatingthis conclusory alleg ation — i.e., the complaint is silent as to the identify or location of the bu sin e ss at is su e ; w he the r s he wa s an o wn e r o r o pe ra tor of that bu sin e ss; wh e n th e bu sin e ss
was a lleg edly

closed; what entity

was re sponsible for alleg edly closing the business; etc. See id. F ourt h, Pla int if f m ake s a se ri e s o f r e qu e sts “ un de r t he Pub lic Inf

or matio n A c t” re late d to the State of Nor

th Carolina. Specific ally , she asks that: (a ) the Court orde r a “ full investigation of Medica id service and billing be conducte d in the State of North Car olina;” and ( b) she be provided

“ the c on sti tue nt m inute s th a t th e se nate is r e qu ir e d to ma int a in, ” a s w e ll a s “ a c op y of a ll c a sh disbursement made by

the g overnme nt of forme r President B ush [ sic ] st imulus packet and . . . by Pr e sid e nt O bama ’s sti mul us pa c ke t, [a nd ] [i]f a c omp any ha s r e c e ive d a

c he c k, [] a c op y

of the ir
acc ount rec eivable a

nd acc ounts pay able with a de tail plan, how they are g oing to pa

y back the money .” Id. a t 4. Pla int if f d oe s n ot i de nti fy

any le g a l ba sis fo r t

he se re qu e sts
. 3F OIA c la im. 3

Fifth, Plaintiff “r equest[s] that North Carolina be g iven some stimulus funds too,” which she asse rts will be “use[d] . . st rictly for youth service s.” Id. Si xth an d f in a ll y , Pl a inti f

f “ r e qu e s t[ s ] [ sic ] to k

no w h owmany

pe op le in t

his Re pu bli c have f iled and ar e wa iting for

a dete rmination” fr om the Social Security Administration. Id. at 5. As indicated a

bove, Plaintiff’s complaint consists solely of conc lusory

alleg ations made without refe renc e to any

underlying f

actua l alleg ations identifying a lleg ed wr ong doing by Def endants or to a

ny leg al authority

supporting a

n awa rd of the va

rious reque sted relief

. Indeed, except for Plaintiff’s c laim that six unnamed individuals “c losed our business bec ause w e had not done our tax es but we w ere not give n a cha nce f or due pr ocess a

nd we did not owe a

ny taxes,” id. at 3-4, Plaintiff’s c omplaint is devoid of any alleg ations of wrong doing by anyone; notably , even as to this claim, Plainti ff doe s not specify whether and how the D efe ndants wer e involved or ha d responsibility

for this ac tion; what relationship she her self alleg edly has with the business at issue; etc. Rathe r, it is appare nt that Plainti ff’ s complaint contains only six unrelated re quests for r elief that do not support a viable c laim for leg al ac tion. I t is we ll s e ttl e d in

thi s Ci rc uit

that a c ourt may dis mis s a c omp la int sua sponte purs ua nt t o F e de ra l Ru le of

Civ il Pr oc e dure 12 (b )( 6) , p ri or to s e rv ic e and

wi tho ut p ro vid ingthe pla int if f w ith
no tic e or an o pp or tun ity to r e sp on d, wh e re it i s “ pate ntl y ob vio us ” that th e pla int if f c ann ot p re va il on the fa cts alleg ed in the complaint. Bake r v. Direc tor, U.S. Parole Comm’n , 916 F.2d 725, 726-27 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ( “B eca use it is patently

obvious that Bake r could not have preva iled on the fa c ts a lle g e d in

his c omp la int , w e fi nd

that sua sponte dis mis sa l w a s a pp ro pr iate .” ); se e als o Da v is v . D ist

ric t of Colum bia , 158 F.3d 1342, 1349 ( D.C. Cir. 1998) (“Under our case s, where a4

tr ia l c ourt ha s d ism iss e d a

c la im sua sponte under Rule 12( b)(6) without affor ding pla intiff an opportunity

to replea d, a re mand is appropr iate unless “‘ the claimant c annot possibly win relief

.’”) (q u o t i n g Bake r , 9 16 F .2 d at 72 6) ; Zernik v. U.S. D ep’t o f Justice , 630 F. Supp. 2d 24, 25 (d ism iss ingc omp la int su a s po ntefo r f

a ilure to s tate a

c la im) ; Perry v . Discove r Bank, 5 14 F. S u p p . 2 d 9 4 , 9 5 (D
. D. C
. 2 0 0 7 ) ( d i s m i s s i n g pro se c omp la int sua sponte wher e the c omplaint made clea r that plaintiff ha d failed to provide “any fac tual or leg al basis for a lleg ed wr ong doing by de fe nd ants ” ). Th a t is pla inl y the c a se he re . Pl a int if

f’ s c omp la int

pr ov ide s n o f

a c tua l or le g a l ba sis for he r var ious requests for relief and fa ils to specify

any alleg ed wr ong doing by

defe ndants that would support a viable c laim for re lief. Plaintiff’s complaint will theref ore be DI SMI SSED without prejudice. A n appropr iate Or der a ccompa nies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: Fe bruar

y 24, 2010

/s/ CO LLEEN K OLLA R- K OTEL LY Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ct J u d ge