Summary
In Paul Bryon Brewer v. United States Government, 1:23-cv-01860 (UNA), 2023 WL 4762585 at *1 (D.D.C. July 21, 2023), the court addressed a case filed by Paul Bryon Brewer, a resident of Pennsylvania, alleging among other things: that in 2009 plaintiff's father gave him the chance to be president through a federal reserve note worth $900 trillion; that Presidents Obama and Biden conspired to steal the $900 trillion which stopped him from running for president; and that they collaborated with the CIA and Congress to surveille and torture him.
Summary of this case from Brewer v. ObamaOpinion
Civil Action 1:23-cv-01860 (UNA)
07-21-2023
PAUL BRYON BREWER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
TREVOR N. McFADDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A complaint that lacks “an arguable basis either in law or in fact” is frivolous, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and a “complaint plainly abusive of the judicial process is properly typed malicious,” Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
Plaintiff, a resident of Pennsylvania, sues the United States. The complaint is difficult to follow. Plaintiff contends that “in 2009, [his] father gave [him] the chance to be President of the United States through a federal reserve note” worth $900 trillion. He contends that Presidents Obama, Biden, and various companies (1) conspired to steal the $900 trillion, which stopped him from running for president, and will result in the overturn of the government and will render the United States “fully communist,” and (2) collaborated with the CIA and Congress to surveille and torture him. The relief sought is unspecified.
This Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a frivolous complaint. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 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, 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904)); Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 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.”). So 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, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992), or “postulat[e] events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind,” Crisafi, 655 F.2d at 1307-08. The instant complaint falls squarely into this category. In addition to failing to state a claim for relief or establish this Court's jurisdiction, the complaint is frivolous on its face.
Consequently, this case will be dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.