Court Opinion

ID: 9396415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-22 16:01:21.776601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:16.964788
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 MICAH ANDERSON,

                Plaintiff,

         v.                                             Civil Action No. 22-cv-3770 (UNA)

 WALT DISNEY INC.,

                Defendant.

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

No. 1, and applications for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF Nos. 2, 4, 8. The Court will

grant the in forma pauperis applications and dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(i), which mandates dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint if 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). Plaintiff’s

complaint is incomprehensible to say the least. What few factual allegations appearing therein

are incoherent, irrational or wholly incredible, rendering the complaint subject to dismissal as

frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual

frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly

                                                  1
incredible[.]”). 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”).

       A separate order will issue.

DATE: May 19, 2023                                    /s/
                                                      CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
                                                      United States District Judge

                                                  2