UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MATTHEW J. SHERVEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-02912 (UNA) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the 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 under

(e)(2)(B)(ii), 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,

(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 a “complaint plainly

abusive of the judicial process is properly typed malicious,” Crisafi v. Holland,

(D.C. Cir. 1981).

The Plaintiff sues the United States pursuant to

, and contends that, in

November 2019, he reported a pornographic video to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the

Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”). He then alleges that, as a result, the DOJ and CIA “placed

the Plaintiff into a top secret program to frame him for child porn. As a part of this program, the

1 United States Intelligence Community work together to harass the Plaintiff, with mind-control and

mind-reading satellites, and by stalking, slandering the Plaintiff and repeatedly hacking the

Plaintiff’s electronic devices.” He goes on to allege that the DOJ and CIA used “mind-control

satellites to transmit voices into the Plaintiff’s head, to trick the Plaintiff into believing that he has

schizophrenic voices calling him a pedophile.” He asserts that the goverment executed this

elaborate plan against him by “beaming voices” into his head, causing (1) him to be admitted to a

mental health facility against his will, (2) him to make various statements to a psychologist that he

does not truly believe, and (3) his house to be raided as part of a criminal investigation. He asks

“the Court to order the United States to stop harassing him and [to] award him punitive damages.”

This 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) (examining cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality,” including where the

plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from

uncertain origins.”). Therefore, the Court is obligated 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, 655 F.2d at 1307–08. The instant complaint falls squarely into this category. In addition

to failing to state a claim for relief or establish this Court’s jurisdiction, the complaint is frivolous

on its face.

2 Consequently, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this

memorandum opinion.

Date: October 27, 2023 ___________________________ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge

3