UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TYESHA ISOM, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01104 (UNA) v. ) ) ANTONIO GUTERRES, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

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).

Here, plaintiff, a resident of Denton, Texas, sues the Secretary-General of the United

Nations and the Denton County District Attorney, citing, without any explanation, the Ohio and

Texas local codes, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. See Compl. at 1–3. The complaint

is vague and rambling, alleging a wide-spread conspiracy, and oscillating through disparate topics,

including, “UN General irresponsibility,” “Haiti women with drug addiction and AIDS,” genocide, “borrowed money from foreign corporations,” “the NFL Soccer Federation,” online sports

gambling, homelessness, “security on [plaintiff’s] properties,” “US Tax payer’s revenue,” and

“foreign soldiers” in the United States armed forces. See id. at 6. Plaintiff demands “500 billion

dollars to the US federation,” and asks this court to “restore sanity in the US economy[.]” See id.

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 20, 2024 AMIT P. MEHTA United States District Judge