UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STEVE SHELDEN, et al. , Plaintiff s ,

v. Civil Action No. 1 6

- 590 (JEB) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , et al. , Defendant s .

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Plaintiff Steve Shelden has filed a 120

- page Complaint, which also appends 260 pages of exhibits, on behalf of himself and Innoventureica, LLC, and Alzcog Therapeutics, LLC. He has named as Defendants the Departments of Justice, Commerce, and Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Institute of Health, several states, and five jud ges. He captions his pleading “Complaint against Defendan ts for Crimes Against Humanity, Terrorism, Perversion and Obstruction of Justice, Slavery, False Prosecutions, Torture, Trauma, Failure to Protect Federally Protected Congressional Witnesses, Gang

- Stalking, Trea s on, and Loss of

Business for a Medical Devic e/Pharmaceutical Company Due to the Unit ed States Policies and

Anti

- Trust Violations.” Compl. at 1. The Complaint sets forth a mishmash of unrelated and bizarre allegations, such as: “US Senators Feinstein, Boxer, and McCain are named in this complaint [t hey actually are not] for refusing to comply with their legal, statutory, and Senatorial duties and to publicly investigate family murders and 8 attempted murders, ” id. at 5; “Defendants [] took orders from corporate America and politicians that translated into acts of outright terrorism against plaint i ffs [] for

decades. Terrorism . . . was delivered in the form of psychological and physiological warfare,”2 id. at 9; “ De f e ndants thwarted and obstructed, and mislead plaintiffs’ business and life and stopped p laintiffs’ graduate school entry when the requirements were met met and exceeded by plaintiffs’ [ sic ],” id. at 12; “He has been over

- medicated and intended to disable me so plaintiffs [] would not be able to work and have a normal life and impair my mental functioning and judgment,” id. at 17; and “Plaintiff (father) cannot pay for dogs (JR) vet bills since ex

- wife closed all bank accounts without warning.” Id. at 24. “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 , wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, plainly unsubstantial, or no longer open to discussion .” Hagans v. Lavine , 415 U.S. 528, 536 (1974) (citations a nd internal quotation marks omitted); see also Best v. Kelly , 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (courts may dismiss claims that are “essentially fictitious”

– for example, where they suggest “bizarre conspiracy theories . . . [or] fantastic g overnment manipulations of [plaintiffs’]

will or mind , [or] any sort of supernatural intervention ”) (citations , internal quotation marks , and

footnote omitted). This is precisely what the Complaint alleges here.

The Court is min dful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are “ held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. ” Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 52 0 (1972). Having reviewed P laintiff s’ C omplain t

– which, by the way, he has no authority to file on behalf of the entities − the Court cannot identify any factual contentions that are comprehensible and potentially credible.3 The Court, accordingly, will issue a contemporaneous Order dis missing the case with out prejudice

.

/s/ **James E. Boasberg** JAMES E. BOASBERG United States District Judge Date: March 31, 2016