UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DARION DION FREDERICK, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01160 (UNA) v. ) ) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint

(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The

court grants the in forma pauperis application and, for the reasons explained below, it dismisses

the case pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(i).

“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).

Plaintiff’s complaint falls into this category. He provides no address, in contravention of

D.C. LCvR 5.1(c)(1), although information in his attachments indicates that he may currently

reside in Austin, Texas, see Compl. Exhibits (“Exs.”), ECF No. 1-1, at 1. Plaintiff sues the District

of Columbia, alleging cryptically that he “would like injunctive relief over claims of being time

positive.” See Compl. at 1. No other information is provided. The remainder of his submission consists of a hodgepodge of assorted and unexplained exhibits, standing in contravention of D.C.

LCvR 5.1(e). Those exhibits predominantly consist of police records from various Texas police

precincts, Texas state court records, and inmate grievances submitted at local Texas facilities. See

Exs. at 2, 6–12. They also include several handwritten pages, presumably authored by plaintiff,

that oscillate through disparate topics, including, the concept of time, aliens, circumcision, “love

through space,” plaintiff’s “bloodline,” cults, “fanciful tea parties,” evolution, “sovereign power,”

and an assortment of other abstract declarations and open-ended rhetorical questions. See

at 3–

5, 13. The relief sought is unspecified.

The court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over 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,” including where the

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

uncertain origins.”). A court may 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 satisfies this standard.

Consequently, the complaint and this case are dismissed without prejudice. A separate

order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

__________/s/_____________ Date: May 24, 2024 AMIT P. MEHTA United States District Judge