UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THEODORE MACON CARRINGTON, JR.,) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02924 (UNA) v. ) ) RON JOHNSON, 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 his Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF

No. 2. The Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP Application, 1 and for the reasons discussed below,

dismisses this case without prejudice.

Plaintiff, who currently civilly committed and designated to Butner Federal Medical

Center, sues an assortment of Defendants, including Congress, four U.S. Senators, two U.S.

Representatives, Mark Zuckerberg, and Samsung U.S.A. See Compl. at 1–4. He does not provide

addresses for many of the Defendants, in contravention of D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1), (g).

See id. at 3–4.

The allegations themselves fare no better. Notably, “[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)).

1 Plaintiff attests that he is currently civilly committed, see Compl. at 2.; therefore, the Court does not require a certified copy of his trust fund account statement, see

(a)(2), because that provision of the PLRA is inapplicable to him, see Vandivere v. Lynch, No. 16-cv-1594,

, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 30, 2016) (citing cases); Ardaneh v. U.S. Gov’t, No. 19-1786,

, at *3 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2020) (same) (citing cases), aff’d,

(D.C. Cir. 2021) (per curiam). A complaint that lacks “an arguable basis either in law or in fact” is frivolous, Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989), and the instant Complaint falls squarely into this category.

Plaintiff alleges that, in 2015, he “became aware of a problem with the virtual reality

Google headsets made by Facebook/Meta/Oculus Rift, and Samsung USA.” Compl. at 5. He

alleges that these headsets emit “very dangerous levels of radiation” and “literally fry the eyeballs

of the user.”

He contends that, in an effort to protect children, he has contacted members of

Congress and prison psychologists to expose the manufacturers of the headsets, but that he has

been ignored due to a conspiracy borne out of “money and power,” and that he has been

“threatened repeatedly to keep [his] mouth shut.” See id. at 6, 10–11. He “demands $500 million

from each Senator and House Representative each,” $10 billion from Congress, $150 billion from

Mark Zuckerberg, and “75 billion from Meta and Samsung U.S.A. each.” Id. at 11.

The Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s frivolous Complaint.

See 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.”). Indeed, as here, 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 v. Holland,

, 1307–08 (D.C. Cir.

1981). For these reasons, the Complaint, ECF No. 1, and this case, are dismissed without

prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

TREVOR N. McFADDEN Date: December 1, 2025 United States District Judge