UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JOSEPH PAUL MURGIDA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00477 (UNA) v. ) ) UNITED STATES, 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 (“IFP”), ECF No.

2. The court grants the in forma pauperis application and, for the reasons explained below,

dismisses this case pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(i), by which the court is required to

dismiss a case “at any time” if it determines that the action is frivolous.

“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 sues approximately 51 defendants, including the United States, federal

officials and agencies, U.S. Supreme Court justices, the Republican Party, law schools and law

professors, U.S. Congressmen, family members, medical providers, and various companies. See

Compl. at 1–13. The prolix complaint is rambling and difficult to follow, rooted in plaintiff’s

belief in multiple complex intersecting conspiracies, orchestrated over several decades, to cause him and others to suffer myriad harms. See

at 5–72. He demands equitable relief and damages.

See

at 72–73.

The court 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 the

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, 655 F.2d at 1307–08. Plaintiff’s complaint is patently frivolous, falling squarely into this

category.

Accordingly, the complaint, ECF No. 1, and this matter, are dismissed without prejudice.

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: April 10, 2025

Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge