Opinion
Civil Action 22-544 (UNA)
03-29-2022
OMAR MEDINA ALEJANDRO, Plaintiff, v. JOE BIDEN The President of the United States, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AMIT P. MEHTA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a form Complaint for a Civil Case, ECF No. 1, and an application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the application and dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring immediate dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint is frivolous).
Plaintiff is a resident of San Pedro, California, who has sued President Joe Biden. Plaintiff alleges, among other bizarre occurrences, that “[p]eople” violating his “privacy at home are describing images of [him] getting rape[d]” and “telling” him that he “was raped by one of EL CHAPO's son[s].” Compl. at 4. Plaintiff states that “[t]he President of the United States has the power to make sure I am safe from harm's way” and suggests that Biden “has been informed more than enough times . . . to know what is happening.” Id. Plaintiff seeks “50 M USD” in damages. Id.
Complaints premised on fantastic or delusional scenarios or supported wholly by allegations lacking “an arguable basis either in law or in fact” are subject to dismissal as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); 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[.]”); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (a court may dismiss claims that are “essentially fictitious”-- for example, where they suggest “bizarre conspiracy theories . . . [or] fantastic government manipulations of their will or mind”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); 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.”). The instant complaint satisfies this standard and suggests no hint of a cure. Therefore, this case will be dismissed with prejudice. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (“A dismissal with prejudice is warranted . . . when a trial court ‘determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.'”) (quoting Jarrell v. United States Postal Serv., 753 F.2d 1088, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (emphasis omitted)). A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.