Court Opinion

ID: 9405006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-26 22:01:01.21084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:18.523117
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                  FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    JOTHIRATHNAM PADMANABHAN,

                             Plaintiff,                       Civil Action No. 23cv1369 (JMC)

          v.

    KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND,

                             Defendants.

                                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

         Plaintiff Jothirathnam Padmanabhan, proceeding pro se, filed a civil Complaint against

United States Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. 1 Mr. Padmanabhan advances various claims that Senator

Gillibrand provided material support to terrorists in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A. For the

reasons described below, the Court DISMISSES the Complaint and this action sua sponte.

         It is well-settled that “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,

wholly insubstantial, [or] obviously frivolous . . . .” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37

(1974). A complaint will be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) when

it is “‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Best v. Kelly,

39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6 (1989)).

Claims are patently insubstantial if they are “essentially fictitious,” for example, advancing

“bizarre conspiracy theories,” “fantastic government manipulations of [one’s] will or mind,” or

1
  Unless otherwise indicated, the formatting of quoted materials has been modified throughout this opinion, for
example, by omitting internal quotation marks and citations, and by incorporating emphases, changes to capitalization,
and other bracketed alterations therein. All pincites to documents filed on the docket are to the automatically generated
ECF Page ID number that appears at the top of each page.

                                                                1
some type of “supernatural intervention.” Id. In such cases, a district court may dismiss the case

sua sponte. See Lewis v. Bayh, 577 F. Supp. 2d 47, 54 (D.D.C. 2008).

       Here, Mr. Padmanabhan’s Complaint rests on the kind of fantastic and delusional claims

that warrant dismissal sua sponte. Mr. Padmanabhan repeatedly alleges that Senator Gillibrand—

or at least her office—provided material support for terrorism. The Complaint alleges that Senator

Gillibrand “influenced the policy of a government against” Mr. Padmanabhan personally, ECF 1

at 5 ¶ 3, as well as engaged in bribery, id. at 6 ¶ 4, provided “expert advice” to a surveillance

scheme involving “[f]oreign police,” id. at 6 ¶ 6, and ignored his reports of a murder, id. at 6–7 ¶

8. Further divorcing the Complaint from reality is the fact that it is not clear what specific act of

terrorism Mr. Padmanabhan believes to have occurred, or what connection exists between that

terrorist act and Mr. Padmanabhan. Nor does the Complaint describe any legible connection

between any terrorist act and Senator Gillibrand. As relief, Mr. Padmanabhan seeks, amongst other

things, 180 million dollars in damages. See ECF 1-1 at 2. These are precisely the kind of “fanciful”

allegations that do not state a substantial federal question. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; see also

Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307–08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“A court may dismiss as frivolous

complaints . . . postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind.”).

       Accordingly, upon sua sponte review, this action is dismissed.

       SO ORDERED.

       DATE: June 26, 2023

                                                              Jia M. Cobb
                                                              U.S. District Court Judge

                                                     2