UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SENADA IBELJIC, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-01617 (UNA) v. ) ) FEDERAL BUREAU ) OF INVESTIGATION, 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 App.”),

ECF No. 2. Plaintiff’s IFP Application is granted, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court

dismisses this case without prejudice.

Plaintiff, a United States citizen currently residing in Bosnia, sues the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, the United States Department of Justice, the Federal Emergency Management

Agency, and other unnamed “federal agents and employers,” contravening D.C. Local Civil Rule

5.1(c)(1), (g). See Compl. at 1–2. She alleges that Defendants have “blacklisted” her, surveilled

her, retaliated against her, and have attacked her with “microwave/directed energy attacks.” See

id. at 1–3. She demands $1 billion in damages and assorted equitable relief. See id. at 3. The

remainder of the Complaint consists of random unexampled exhibits, ECF Nos. 1-2 through 1-16,

contravening D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(e), (g).

The Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 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,

, 1010

(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.”). As here, a court shall 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 v. Holland,

, 1307–08 (D.C. Cir. 1981); see

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

For these reasons, the Complaint, ECF No. 1, and this case, are dismissed without

prejudice. Plaintiff’s other pending Motions, ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9, are all denied as moot. A

separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

TREVOR N. McFADDEN Date: November 20, 2025 United States District Judge