Cynthia Mewborn, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Civil Action No. 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency et al., 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

JUL 3 1 2012 

Clerk, U.S. Dist!ict. & Bankruptcy 

Courts for the D1stnct of Columbia 

12 1261 

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and application 

to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be 

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring dismissal of a complaint upon a 

determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or is 

frivolous). 

Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident suing the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency ("EPA"), the United States Coast Guard, and BP oil company for property 

damage and personal injury. Compl. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that defendants promised to use her 

"ideas for stopping the oil leak off of the Coast of Mexico in 201 0 .... , " id., but apparently 

reneged. Plaintiff also alleges that defendants in fact stole her "Dome Cap" idea and used it. !d. 

She seeks a total of $400 million in damages. 

Plaintiff does not allege that her ideas are patented, trademarked or otherwise registered 

for protection. Nor is there any indication in the complaint's allegations and attachments that 

plaintiff and defendants established a legal relationship of any kind. To the contrary, plaintiff 

3 
attaches a letter from EPA that, among other things, thanks her for her submission and informs 

her that "[ s ]ince the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, the federal government has received 

more than 20,000 suggestions and technology solutions from vendors and other members of the 

public in the United States and abroad. The EPA alone has received more than 2,000 suggestions 

each of which were reviewed in an orderly and expeditious manner." Compl. Attach. Given the 

nature of plaintiffs suggestions, EPA informed her that it was forwarding her submission to the 

Coast Guard. /d. Plaintiff also attaches an email message purportedly from Lara Autry whom 

plaintiff alleges told her in a telephone conversation "that [EPA] not only wanted to use one of 

my idea[s] ... I had submitted in stopping the [oil] leak[,] but that they wanted all of my ideas 

and that three of my ideas were being implemented [b ]y [the Coast Guard]." Com pl. at 1. 

Autry's email, however, makes no such representations and, like the EPA's letter, is a letter 

generally thanking plaintiff for her "continued thoughts and ideas to help with such an 

unfortunate disaster." Com pl. Attach. 

Not only does the complaint fail to state a cognizable claim but it also presents the type of 

fantastic or delusional scenarios warranting dismissal under § 1915( e )(2) as frivolous. See 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 

1994). "A court may dismiss as frivolous complaints reciting bare legal conclusions with no 

suggestion of supporting facts, or postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful 

kind." Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981 ). Since the instant complaint 

qualifies for such treatment, it will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this 

Memorandum Opinion. 

\f\..-

Date: July 1fl__, 2012 

2