Opinion
Civil Action 1:22-cv-00399 (UNA)
04-19-2022
OMAR MEDINA ALEJANDRO, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH BIDEN, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
TIMOTHY J. KELLY, United States District Judge.
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 case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), by which the court is required to dismiss a case “at any time” if it determines that the action 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 a “complaint plainly abusive of the judicial process is properly typed malicious, ” Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
Plaintiff is a resident of San Pedro, California, who has sued President Biden. Plaintiff alleges, among other bizarre occurrences, that his First and Fourth Amendment “right to the U.S. Constitution is raped” because “people are harassing” him at his home while he is “trying to sleep.” He states that he has endured “near death experience[s], ” and that he does “not wear Halloween face masks, unlike other people[.]” He alleges that, as a result of a broad conspiracy, orchestrated against him because he made “complaints to the authorities, ” he has suffered panic attacks. He maintains that the President has “failed to live up to his duties” to somehow assist him and demands $200 billion in damages.
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 the plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain origins.”). A court may 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, 655 F.2d at 1307-08.
The instant complaint satisfies this standard. In addition to failing to state a claim for relief, the complaint is deemed frivolous on its face. Consequently, the complaint and this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.