Court Opinion

ID: 9387988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 16:01:08.375852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:16.699664
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TARA MIKENAS,                                          )
                                                       )
                       Plaintiff,                      )
                                                       )   Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00959 (UNA)
       v.                                              )
                                                       )
ERALDO PEREZ,                                          )
                                                       )
                        Defendant.                     )

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The Court will grant

the application and dismiss the complaint pursuant to 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 the 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 plaintiff

allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain

                                                  1
origins.”). Consequently, a 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 v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The instant complaint satisfies this

standard.

       In conclusory and disjointed fashion, plaintiff alleges defendant violated unspecified civil

rights, controls her online presence and relationships with others, exploits her financially,

threatens to steal future earnings, and attempts to force her into sex slavery. See Compl. at 1.

She is “suing for emotional and physical damages over one million dollars.” Id. This complaint

is frivolous on its face and, therefore, it will be dismissed without prejudice.

       An Order is issued separately.

                                                       /s/
                                                       TANYA S. CHUTKAN
DATE: April 19, 2023                                   United States District Judge

                                                  2