U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DARION DION FREDERICK , ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1: 24

- cv - 01160 (UNA)
v. ) ) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA , ) ) Defendant

. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the c ourt on its initial review of p laintiff ’s pro se complaint (“Compl.”) , ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis , ECF No. 2. T he

c ourt grants the in forma pauperis application and , for the reasons explained below, it dismiss es
the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (i)

. “A c omplaint must contain sufficient f actual 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 proc ess is properly typed malicious, ” Crisafi v. Holland , 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981)

. Plaintiff’s complaint falls into this category. He provides no address, in contravention of D.C. LCvR 5.1(c)(1), although information in his attachments indicates that he may currently reside in Austin, Texas, see Compl. Exhibits (“Exs.”), ECF No. 1

- 1, at 1. Plaintiff sues the District of Columbia, alleging cryptically that he “would like injunctive relief over claims of being time positive.” See Compl. at 1. No other information is provided. The remainder of his submissionconsists of a hodgepodge of a ssorted and unexplained exhibits, standing in contravention of D.C. LCvR 5.1(e) . Those exhibits predominantly consist of police records from various Texas police precincts, Texas state court records, and inmate grievances submitted at local Texas faciliti es. See
Exs. at 2, 6

– 12. They also include several handwritten pages, presumably authored by plaintiff,
that oscillate through disparate topics , including, the concept of time, aliens, circumcision, “love through space,” plaintiff’s “bloodline,” cults, “fanciful tea parties,” evolution, “sovereign power,”
and an assortment of other abstract declarations and open

- ended rhetorical questions. See id. at 3

– 5, 13. The relief sought is unspecified.
The c ourt cannot exercise subject matte r 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 att enuated 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 complaint as frivolous “ when the facts alleged rise to
the level of the irrat 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 co mplaint satisfies this standard

. C onsequently, the complaint and this case are dismissed without prejudice

. A separate

o rder accompanies this memorandum o pinion. __________/s/_____________ Date: May 24, 2024 AMIT P. MEHTA United States District Judge