Court Opinion

ID: 9399247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 16:01:54.93844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:50.587474
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 JEFFREY LEE MOURNING,

                Plaintiff,

         v.                                             Civil Action No. 23-0996 (UNA)

 JOHN BROWN, 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 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(i),

which permits 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). This

complaint alleges that defendants are agents of the Chinese government working against the

interests of the United States who, among other wrongful acts, caused devices to be implanted

into plaintiff’s body through which they conduct video and audio surveillance. Because the

complaint’s factual allegations are incoherent, irrational or wholly incredible, the complaint

                                                 1
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 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: June 1, 2023
                                                       BERYL A. HOWELL
                                                       United States District Judge

                                                  2