UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) HENRY MYERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-3619 (UNA) ) GL SOLUTIONS GmbH & Co. KG, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of pro se plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) and his civil complaint. The IFP application is GRANTED and, for the

reasons stated below, the Complaint and this civil action are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Plaintiff, who uses the names “Henry Barhite,” “Henry Myers,” and “Henry Christ,”

Compl. at 1, declares himself the “owner” of “the Henry Christ trademark,” id. at 4. Relying on

assorted treaties and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, see id. at 3, plaintiff

in nonsensical fashion, deems himself “the Delegate of Christ,” id. at 4, and demands “[a]ll

money received for all goods sold under the branding Henry Christ” and “for the ownership of

the Henry Christ trademark,” 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). The few

factual allegations set forth in the complaint are largely incoherent, irrational or wholly

incredible, rendering the complaint subject to dismissal as frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992) (“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts

alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible[.]”). The Court cannot exercise

subject matter jurisdiction over such a frivolous complaint. Hagans v. Lavine,

, 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,

(1904)); Tooley v. Napolitano,

(D.C. Cir.

2009) (examining cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality”). This Complaint is therefore

dismissed without prejudice.

An Order is issued separately.

DATE: December 28, 2023 BERYL A. HOWELL United States District Judge