UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GLENN WINNINGHAM, Plaintiff,

v. ZACK WILLIS, et al ., Defendants. Civil Action No. 11-1204 (BAH) Judge Beryl A. Howell

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Glenn Winningham, self -described as “a sovereign living soul, a Texas citizen, and thereby an American national, and a holde r of the office of ‘the people,’” brought the pro se Complaint currently before the Court on June 27, 2011. Compl. at 1. For the reasons explained below, the Court dismisses this action sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. I. BACKGROUND The plaintiff, who considers himself “a nation under international law” and “an inhabitant of the land of Texas,” brings this action against three named defendants: Zack Willis, a recruiter for Oxford International, a company that allege dly provides contract wo rkers in the technical engineering field; Chris Town es, a manager for Oxford International; and Aaron Graves, a manager for the Federal Express Corporation. Co mpl. ¶¶ 9-13, 49. According to the Complaint, Willis and Townes are citizens of Florida and Graves is a citizen of Tennessee. Id. ¶¶ 9, 10, 13. The plaintiff appears to allege that these de fendants rescinded a job offer to him due to his refusal to provide a Social Security number for a background check during the hiring process.
See id. ¶¶ 25-32, 37. He claims that it is a fel ony for an employer to require disclosure of employee Social Security numbers. Id. ¶ 73. This legal conclu sion, as expressed in the2 Complaint, appears to rest on va rious fanciful claims about the legal status of United States citizenship, a concept which is illegitimate in th e plaintiff’s eyes. For example, the plaintiff states that the “so-called Fourteenth Amendmen t is a nullity, because Congress, does not have the authority to revise the Constitution [sic].” Id. ¶ 44; see also id. ¶ 51 (“[C]orporate commercial hired thugs insisted on falsely accusing the Demandant of being a US citizen as contemplated by the so-called Fourteenth Amendment.”); id. ¶ 68 (“The Demandant is not a resident of the United States and has never been a resident of the Unite d States, and has never even been in the United States.”). Although the plaintiff describes himself as “an inhabitant of the land of Texas,” he does not appear to recognize U.S. authority over Texa s. For instance, he has signed the Complaint with a legend indicating that the Complaint wa s executed “on the land of Texas” and “without the UNITED STATES.” Id. at 18 (emphasis in original). In addition, he has attached to the Complaint a jurat executed and stamped by a purporte d notary public of the “Republic of Texas,” id. at 19, showing, at a minimum, th at at least one other individua l shares his worldview. The Complaint also contains allegations rela ted to the supposed ille gitimacy of postal zip codes and other cryptic claims whos e import is difficult to decipher. See , e.g. , id. ¶ 76 (“ZIP CODES are a martial law jurisdiction, which is by consent ONLY.”) (emphasis in original); id. ¶ 47 (“The Demandant has in his possession much more than twenty-one dollars in lawful money (twenty-one each, one ounce silver eagle coins wi th a face value of one dollar each).”). The plaintiff brings his suit pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 18 U.S.C. § 242. Id. ¶¶ 82-83. He is seeking $343,200.00 in actual damages and an additional $5,000,000.00 in punitive damages for alleged harms, and further requests that the defendants “be prosecuted for their multiple felony crim es, and if convicted, jailed . . . .” Id. ¶¶ 84-86.3 For the reasons detailed below, the Court dismisses the Complaint and all claims therein sua sponte pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). II. DISCUSSION Plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), on the grounds that they are fundamentally fanciful. See Roum v. Bush , 461 F. Supp. 2d 40, 46–47 (D.D.C. 2006). “[F]ederal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise w ithin their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubs tantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.” Hagans v. Lavine , 415 U.S. 528, 536 (1974) (internal quotation marks om itted). Complaints consisting of “fanciful claims,” “bizarre conspiracy theories,” or alle gations of “fantastic gove rnment manipulations of [the plaintiff’s] will or mind” are generally subjec t to dismissal on that basis under Rule 12(b)(1). Best v. Kelly , 39 F.3d 328, 330-331 (D.C. Cir. 1994); see also Roum , 461 F. Supp. 2d at 46-47. Although the Court is mindful that a pro se complaint must be held to less stringent standards than those ap plied to formal pleadi ngs drafted by lawyers, Brown v. District of Columbia , 514 F.3d 1279, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the plainti ff’s complaint presents the type of fundamentally unrealistic allegations and asser tions that must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Roum , 461 F. Supp. 2d at 46–47 (dismissing comp laint for lack of jurisdiction where plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the FBI be gan attacking him with la sers and radiation as a result of a dispute between the plaintiff and an insurance company regarding an auto collision); see also Wilson v. Obama , No. 10-1290, 2011 WL 958753, at *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 17, 2011). While the Court recognizes that the plaintiff alleges that the defendants refused to hire him, the lengthy, esoteric allegations of the Comp laint do not state a claim that is cognizable by this Court. Another judge of this Court summarily dismissed a similar complaint previously filed by the same plaintiff on the grounds that that complaint “appear s to lack an arguable basis4 in either law or fact, and may reflect delusional thinking.” Winningham v. Schulman , No. 09- 2435, 2009 WL 5195947, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 30, 2009), aff’d 377 Fed. App’x 23 (D.C. Cir. 2010). The D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal, noting that “[c]laims like those of appellant, involving bizarre conspiracy theories, or fantas tic government manipulations of one’s will or mind are obviously frivolous.” Winningham v. Schulman, No. 10-5039, 377 Fed. App’x 23, 2010 WL 2162604, at *1 (D.C. Cir. May 7, 2010) (i nternal citations omitted). For the same reason, the Court will dismiss this Complain t in its entirety against all defendants. 1

DATED: July 6, 2011 /s/ 

# Beryl A. Howell BERYL A. HOWELL United States District Judge

1 The Court notes that the plaintiff’s allegations also a ppear unlikely to provide any basis for venue or personal jurisdiction in this District. None of the parties are alleged to reside in the District of Columbia, nor are any events in the Complaint alleged to have occurred here. See Compl. Apparently in light of his views on the illegitimacy of U.S. citizenship and U.S. au thority in Texas, the plaintiff brought his suit in this forum because, despite being a resident of Texas, he alleges that he is “not a resident of a federal judicial district. . . .” Id. ¶ 8. If this case were to proceed, the Complaint would also likely be subject to dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue.