Josh Wise v. Joe Biden, et al.

FILED IN THE 2 EASTER U N . S D . I S D T I R S I T C R T I C O T F C W O A U S R H T I NGTON Nov 19, 2025 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON JOSH WISE, No. 2:25-CV-00469-MKD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 9 v. JOE BIDEN, et al., 11 Defendants. ECF No. 2 14 Plaintiff filed a Complaint on November 18, 2025. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. A complaint filed by any party that seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 17 1915(a) is subject to screening, and the Court must dismiss a complaint that is, among other things, frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 19 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s allegations liberally, see Capp v. Cnty. of San Diego, 940 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2019), the Court concludes Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous.

3 Plaintiff alleges a vast conspiracy involving current and former Federal officials, the Governor of Washington, media and technology companies, local law enforcement, and local businesses and individuals. Plaintiff alleges Defendants have participated in “an extreme and coordinated campaign of harassment and surveillance” against him, which includes, among other things, “percussion bomb” explosions, aerial surveillance, hacking, and social media “shadow banning.” ECF No. 1 at 7-16. The Supreme Court has held that a complaint is frivolous when it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” or when the factual allegations are “clearly baseless,” “fantastic,” or “delusional.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 12 319, 327-28 (1989). Such is the case here. See, e.g., Wise v. Walmart Inc., 2022 13 WL 11324869, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2022) (“Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed as patently frivolous. Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is rambling and contains no credible claim for relief. Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant, along with the Federal Government, and the FBI have altered Plaintiff’s video collection are far-fetched.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 1824436 (E.D.

18 Cal. Feb. 8, 2023). The Court thus dismisses this action with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In light of this frivolity, the Court denies leave to amend. See Lucas v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that when a court dismisses a pro se plaintiff’s complaint, it must give the plaintiff leave to amend “[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect” in the complaint); Wise v. Dir. of Fed. Bureau of Investigations, 2022 4 WL 1409705, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2022) (noting Plaintiff’s “allegations are fantastic and delusional” and holding “[l]eave to amend would be futile because the complaint is frivolous”), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 7 2658903 (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2022).

8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 9 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with prejudice.

10 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is 11 DENIED as moot.

12 3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction Relief, ECF No. 3, and related 13 Motion to Expedite, ECF No. 4, are DENIED as moot.

14 4. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal 15 of this Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any 16 arguable basis in law or fact.

17 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment, provide a copy to Plaintiff, and CLOSE THE FILE.

1 DATED November 19, 2025.

2 s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE