Court Opinion

ID: 9352478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 18:01:08.836959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:03:26.642151
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                    )
PATRICK CHRISTIAN,                  )
                                    )
            Plaintiff,              )
                                    )
      v.                            )                    Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-03742 (UNA)
                                    )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )
                                    )
            Defendants.             )
___________________________________ )

                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Currently before the court is plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and application for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. For the reasons explained below, the court

will grant the IFP application and dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), by

which the court is required to dismiss a case “at any time” 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).

       Plaintiff sues the United States, the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party. He

broadly cites to numerous provisions of state and federal law but fails to state a single cognizable

claim. The complaint is vague, rambling, and is comprised of “57” hypothetical questions. It is

also rife with unconnected blanket statements and anecdotes. For example, plaintiff discusses
topics, including, but not limited to, wide-scale conspiracies, voyeurism, “canonical impropriety,”

“misconduct by sworn oath takers,” “prosecutorial vindictiveness,” false medical diagnoses,

forced hospitalizations, murder, and alleged wrongdoing by various individuals, politicians, public

figures, and celebrities. He contends that Congress has [sic] “passed Laws to favor Racist’s and

Homosexual’s,” despite “the weight of the holy Bible and Holy Quran [that] tells us that GOD

frowns upon this way of life.” He seeks $15 billion in damages and demands that defendants and

many others be held criminally responsible for their alleged conspiracy to “victimize” him because

he is “heterosexual, honorable, and gentlemanly, [and] due to their jealousy, envy, malice,

psychosis, wickedness, greed, and animosity[.]”

       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 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 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 into this category. In addition to failing to state a claim for

relief, the complaint is frivolous on its face. Consequently, the complaint and this case will be

dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

                                                    /s/______________________
                                                    CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
Date: January 4, 2023                                United States District Judge