UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARCUS TROY REUM, : : Plaintiff, : v. : Civil Action No. 23-1007 (UNA) : : UNITED STATES, et al., : : Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The Court will grant

the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the complaint and this civil action without

prejudice.

The complaint is a confused and disorganized assortment of purported legal claims and

outlandish demands for relief. Among other topics, plaintiff discusses divorce and child custody

proceedings in a Washington State court, see Compl. at 6 (page numbers designated by

CM/ECF), bigamy and fraud, see id., unfavorable rulings in civil actions filed in the United

States District Court for the Western District of Washington, see id. at 7-8, confiscation of

plaintiff’s firearms, see id. at 9, and plaintiff’s plea agreement in a criminal matter in a State

court, see id. at 9. And among other relief, see generally id. at 11-12, plaintiff demands orders

for “a criminal referral” of two judges “for conspiring to deprive [plaintiff] of his rights, which

resulted in two kidnappings . . . in 2021, and . . . 2022,” id. at 11; “directing the Department of

State to immediately issue Diplomatic Passports to [plaintiff] and his offspring,” id. at 12;

directing United States “Marshals to arrive in numbers sufficient to arrest each KITSAP

COUNTY DISTRICT COURT agent who refuses to settle, discharge, and otherwise dismiss

1 with prejudice, ALL cases against” plaintiff, id., and to “collect [plaintiff’s] weapons from the

CITY OF GIG HARBOR and KITSAP COUNTY DISTRICT COURT,” id.; and issuing

summonses for the “KITSAP COUNTY SHERIFF and PIERCE COUNTY SHERIFF, to appear

and SHOW CAUSE why they should not be referred to answer for ‘ARTICLES OF

IMPEACHMENT,’ for failure to perform a sworn duty when requested,” id.

“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,

(2009) (quoting Bell

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). A complaint that lacks “an arguable basis

either in law or in fact” is frivolous, Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989), and the Court

cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a frivolous complaint, Hagans v. Lavine,

(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,

(1904)); Tooley v. Napolitano,

(D.C. Cir.

2009). Consequently, a Court is empowered to dismiss a complaint as frivolous “when the facts

alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,” Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992), or “postulat[e] events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind,” Crisafi

v. Holland,

(D.C. Cir. 1981). The instant complaint satisfies this

standard, as its factual allegations are largely nonsensical and the complaint otherwise fails to

articulate plausible legal claims. An Order is issued separately.

DATE: May 9, 2023 /s/ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge

2