UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IESHA REAVES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 24-2704 (UNA) ) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

pauperis (ECF No. 2), motion to expedite (ECF No. 3), motion for preliminary injunction (ECF

No. 5) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1). The Court GRANTS the application, DENIES the

motions, and for the reasons discussed below, DISMISSES the complaint and this civil action

without prejudice.

Plaintiff alleges that, as far back as 2017, unidentified individuals or, perhaps,

government agencies, have forced her to ‘“participate’ against [her] will,” Compl. at 4, in

activities she does not describe. She further alleges “being told [she] needed to be exploited for

the benefit of white people,” id., because her skin color, age and gender, see id. Plaintiff

demands that “all involved . . . be held accountable,” id., noting that no one can “force[ her] to be

in a ‘relationship’ with anyone, especially older men of any race/culture.” 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

1 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 plaintiff

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

origins.”). Consequently, a 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 v. Holland,

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

standard and, therefore, it will be dismissed without prejudice.

A separate order will issue.

DATE: October 22, 2024 CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge

2