U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ER IC E. TAYLOR , ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:20- mc -00001 ( UNA ) ) ) DONALD J. TRUMP , et al ., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
T his matter is before the court on its initial review of p laintiff ’s pro se initiating pleading and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis . The c ourt will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), which allows for dismissal if a plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or if an action is frivolous or malicious. Plaintiff has also filed a motion for summary judgment which will be denied. Plaintiff, who lists an address of Portsmouth, Virginia, has filed an initiating pleading without any title caption identifying its pur pose. He lists the President, U.S. Congress, numerous federal judges and Supreme Court Justices, as well as unknown “attestors [sic] and proponents” and “every other United States Citizen[,]” in the case caption where defendants should be listed but inste ad indicates that this case is “not versus” the aforement ioned entities and individuals, insinuating that they are not intended as defendants.
In attempting to initiate a civil case before this court, a plaintiff must file a complaint or pleading stati ng a claim for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. The initiating pleading here fails to abide by any of the relevant Federal or Local Civil Rules of Procedure. Further, plaintiff must put forth 6 /1 2/2020sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim t o 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 matter 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 proc ess is properly typed malicious,” Crisafi v. Holland , 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981)

. Here, the initiating pleading and its intended purpose are incomprehensible. It consists of rambling ruminations regarding double jeopardy and executive and l egislative oaths and duties. Plaintiff also seems to allege that he was imp roperly indicted and prosecuted in Virginia, however, no other sufficient infor mation is provided. Neither the proposed parties nor the causes of action are identified. He seeks a “zillion” dollars in damages, injunctive relief, and broadly asks the Court to review various portions of the Constitution and federal code. This c ourt c annot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a frivolous action

. 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 jurisdi ction 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 dismissed “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 matter as frivolous “ when the facts alleged rise to the level of the i rrat 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 matter satisfies this standard. In addition to fail ing to state a claim for relief or to establish federal jurisdiction, the initiating pleading is deemed frivolous on its face

. Consequently, this case will be dismissed with prejudice

. A separate o rder accompanies this memorandum o pinion.

_ __________/s/_____________ EMMET G. SULLIVAN United States District Judge
DATE: June 12 , 2020