Court Opinion

ID: 9407469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-07 15:01:09.970919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:38.540191
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GWENDOLYN HALL,                                       )
                                                      )
                       Plaintiff,                     )
                                                      )   Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-01908 (CRC)
       v.                                             )
                                                      )
CHRIS WRAY,                                           )
                                                      )
                        Defendant.                    )

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Plaintiff initiated this civil action in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and

on June 30, 2023, defendant removed the action. This matter is before the Court on its initial

review of plaintiff’s pro se amended complaint (ECF No. 1-1). The Court will dismiss the

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which permits dismissal of a case “at any

time” if the Court determines that it 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

                                                  1
allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain

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.

       Plaintiff’s amended complaint is, in a word, nonsense. Its three short paragraphs allege

that an unidentified individual exchanged sex for marijuana, that another unidentified individual

befriended the Mexican Mafia, and that a box of evidence was stolen from a post office in

Sarasota, Florida, but do not manage to allege coherent facts supporting an actual legal claim.

Because the pleading is frivolous on its face, it will be dismissed without prejudice. An Order is

issued separately.

                                              CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
DATE: July 7, 2023                            United States District Judge

                                                  2