UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TYESHA ISOM, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01106 (UNA) v. ) ) BRETT FREEDMAN, 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 Chief of Staff for the National Security

Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, a former American diplomat and ambassador, a former

United States President, and the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. See Compl. at 1–3, 6.

The complaint is vague and rambling, alleging a wide-spread government-led conspiracy––

initiated during President George W. Bush’s administration, and still in force, to date––to surveille non-citizens, but that ultimately led to the surveillance of U.S. citizens, as well. See id. at 4. The

complaint then oscillates through disparate topics, including, the “political agendas,” “emotional

jealousy rages,” and general unprofessionalism of the “FISA intelligence service,” “federal

government kidnappings,” “extortion damages to the born U.S. citizens,” protecting “families”

from “an unknown foreign monster,” “federalist responsibilities,” “immoral practices of the DOJ

Officers and Judges [who] can’t be trusted to tell the truth,” and capital punishment. See id. at 7.

Plaintiff demands that this court “cancel the FISA system,” and “hold the DOJ National Security

Division federal agency responsible for injuries and misuse of power with a restitution of $1

trillion.” See id. at 4, 7. She contends that this award would be derived from a “lien of settlement”

held on her behalf by the Federal Reserve. 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