Court Opinion

ID: 9911542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 15:01:37.394762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:51:24.122042
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MATTHEW J. SHERVEN,                            )
                                               )
                Plaintiff,                     )
                                               )      Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-03452 (UNA)
v.                                             )
                                               )
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE                          )
DIRECTOR, et al.,                              )
                                               )
                Defendants.                    )

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

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

forma pauperis application and, for the reasons explained below, dismisses this case pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), which requires dismissal of a case “at any time” upon determination

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).

        Here, plaintiff sues the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central

Intelligence Agency (“CIA”), the National Security Agency, and the Department of Justice

(“DOJ”), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending that, in either October or November 2019, he

reported a pornographic video to the DOC and CIA. See Compl. at 1–2. Plaintiff then alleges
that, as a result, the “CIA and DOJ decided to frame the Plaintiff for child porn[,]” in order to

“conduct a psychological operation (PSYOP) to frame the Plaintiff so they could get rid of him

extra-judicially.” See id. at 2. He contends that the federal government employed “mind control

and mind-reading satellites” to “listen to [his] train of thought, allowing them to listen to the

Plaintiff thinking about attacking the government[,]” and to “see . . . the images inside of his head[,]

and [to] also see through the Plaintiff’s eyeballs.” Id. at 2–3. As relief, plaintiff demands that the

government return “all recordings, videos, audio clips, images, or other media taken from his brain

[that] belong to him.” Id. at 3.

        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.”). Therefore, the 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 a basis for the exercise of jurisdiction, the complaint

is frivolous on its face.
      Consequently, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

                                                  /s/_______________________
                                                       BERYL A. HOWELL
Date: December 18, 2023                              United States District Judge