Court Opinion

ID: 9412480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-31 16:02:34.554892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:26.152119
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ANDREW GILL,                                   )
                                               )
               Plaintiff,                      )
                                               )      Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-02117 (UNA)
v.                                             )
                                               )
STEVEN VIOREL, et al.,                         )
                                               )
                Defendants.                    )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF

No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant

the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case 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 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, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues 28 defendants for damages, although

how the defendants are connected to one another, or how the intended claims are connected to the

defendants, if at all, is impossible to decipher. The 60-page prolix complaint fails to formally

comply with Federal Rule 10(a) and D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(d), (e), and (g), and is
incomprehensible, covering a wide range of disparate topics, and is comprised mostly of personal

ruminations and conspiracy theories.

        This 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.”). So 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, 655

F.2d at 1307–08. The instant complaint falls squarely into this category. In addition to failing to

state a claim for relief or establish this Court’s jurisdiction, the complaint is frivolous on its face.

        Consequently, this case will be dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies

this memorandum opinion.

                                                         TREVOR N. McFADDEN
  Date: 7/31/23                                          United States District Judge