Case Name: Xavier FLORES, Plaintiff, v. The U.S. SENATE MEMBERS, Defendants
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-21
Citations: 960 F. Supp. 2d 1
Docket Number: Civil Action No. 13-694
Parties: Xavier FLORES, Plaintiff, v. The U.S. SENATE MEMBERS, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Supplement 2d
Volume: 960
Pages: 1–1

Head Matter:
Xavier FLORES, Plaintiff, v. The U.S. SENATE MEMBERS, Defendants.
Civil Action No. 13-694.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
May 21, 2013.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AMY BERMAN JACKSON, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action "at any time" it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).
Plaintiff, a homeless individual who submitted more than 30 cryptic complaints within the first two weeks of March alone, sues the United States Senate for its "failure to address the nation's solution to its problems." Compl. at 1. He demands an "evaluation of all the members of the U.S. Senate" and their "retraining." Id. at 2. The law is clear that "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.' " Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-7, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974) (quoting Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579, 24 S.Ct. 553, 48 L.Ed. 795 (1904)); accord Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C.Cir.2009) ("A complaint may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds when it "is 'patently insubstantial,' presenting no federal question suitable for decision." ") (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C.Cir.1994)). The instant complaint satisfies this standard and, therefore, will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.