UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR'I` FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Fu..i_=p

MAY l 3 2013 Xavier Flores, ) C|gfakr;kU.S. Dlstrlct and ) ruptcy CCUI'tS Plaintiff, ) ) v. j civil A¢ti<m No. , 67 j \B b l U.S. Supreme Court et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. l2(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action "at any time" it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).

Plaintiff, a homeless individual who submitted more than 30 mostly cryptic complaints within the first two weeks of March alone, sues the United States Supreme Court and the United States Congress. He states that his "complaint is against the countries that practice unfair trade practices . . . .," and he sues the United States apparently for failing "to react." Compl. at l-2. 'l`he law is clear 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.’ " Hagans v. Lavirze,

(l974) (quoting Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 56l, 579 (1904)); accord Tooley v. Napolz'tcmo,

, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009)

("A complaint may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds when it "is ‘patently insubstantial,’ l

presenting no federal question suitable for decision.") (quoting Best v. Kelly,

(D.C. Cir. 1994). The instant complaint satisfies this standard and, therefore, will be dismissed.

A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. ll blm

Date: May 5 f ,2013 l{}m`led St%)te§'l)istr\i/ct Judge