UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SIVOKENEV PAVEL IGOREVICH,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:24-cv-01317-TNM

UNITED STATES, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of the United States’ Motion to Dismiss and

related briefing, as well as Sivokenev Igorevich’s Motion for Hearing. The Court will grant the

United States’ Motion to Dismiss and deny Igorevich’s request for a pretrial conference as moot.

Igorevich filed a 98-page Complaint alleging a panoply of claims. The overarching

theme is that the U.S. Government implanted experimental technology in his brain while he was

hospitalized in Munich, Germany, and that the technology continues to control his

behavior. ECF No. 9 at 87–95. He also claims to have been the victim of coordinated stalking,

harassment, and hacking from the U.S. Government through various state and local police

departments, the FBI, and state and federal court officials. Id. passim. He raises 13 counts that

vary from Section 1983 and Bivens claims to violations of criminal statutes. Id. Some of his

allegations center on FBI and state agents’ refusal to file reports on his behalf. Id. Igorevich

acknowledges that his Complaint details an “elaborate conspiracy theory.” Id. at 5.

“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) (cleaned up). A

complaint that lacks “an arguable basis either in law or in fact” is frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). Courts cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over such a 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.”)

(cleaned up). So a court must dismiss a complaint “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,

, 1307–08

(D.C. Cir. 1981).

Igorevich’s Complaint satisfies this circuit’s standard for dismissal for lack of Article III

jurisdiction. The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of a complaint on jurisdictional grounds when

it similarly alleged that the Government had launched a “massive surveillance program” over the

plaintiff, including using “tracking devices” on his car. See Tooley v. Napolitano,

(D.C. Cir. 2009);

(citing with approval opinion dismissing a complaint for lack of

jurisdiction when it alleged government harassment “from uncertain origins, either a long past

employment by the FBI or a falling out with roommates even earlier”). The Complaint will be

dismissed without prejudice.

Accordingly, Igorevich’s Motion for Hearing will be denied as moot.

A separate order will issue. 2024.10.29 11:31:10 -04'00' TREVOR N. McFADDEN United States District Judge DATE: October 29, 2024