1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MATTHEW J. SHERVEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-02912 (UNA) 

v. )

 )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF 

No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant 

the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 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). 

The Plaintiff sues the United States pursuant to 42 U.S. Code § 1983, and contends that, in 

November 2019, he reported a pornographic video to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the 

Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”). He then alleges that, as a result, the DOJ and CIA “placed 

the Plaintiff into a top secret program to frame him for child porn. As a part of this program, the 
2

United States Intelligence Community work together to harass the Plaintiff, with mind-control and 

mind-reading satellites, and by stalking, slandering the Plaintiff and repeatedly hacking the 

Plaintiff’s electronic devices.” He goes on to allege that the DOJ and CIA used “mind-control 

satellites to transmit voices into the Plaintiff’s head, to trick the Plaintiff into believing that he has 

schizophrenic voices calling him a pedophile.” He asserts that the goverment executed this 

elaborate plan against him by “beaming voices” into his head, causing (1) him to be admitted to a 

mental health facility against his will, (2) him to make various statements to a psychologist that he 

does not truly believe, and (3) his house to be raided as part of a criminal investigation. He asks 

“the Court to order the United States to stop harassing him and [to] award him punitive damages.” 

This Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction 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 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.”). Therefore, the Court is obligated to dismiss a complaint as frivolous “when 

the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational 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 complaint falls squarely into this category. In addition 

to failing to state a claim for relief or establish this Court’s jurisdiction, the complaint is frivolous 

on its face. 
3

Consequently, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this 

memorandum opinion. 

Date: October 27, 2023 ___________________________

 JIA M. COBB 

 United States District Judge