Opinion
Civil Action No. 11 2293
12-20-2011
In re: Tyrone Julius, Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, has submitted a wholly incomprehensible complaint against an indecipherable defendant or defendants. The only clear thing in the complaint is plaintiff's demand for $999,999,999 in damages. Plaintiff's outlandish and baseless demand warrants dismissal of the complaint under § 1915(e)(2) as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, the complaint is so "patently insubstantial" as to deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009); see Caldwell v. Kagan, 111 F. Supp.2d 177, 178 (D.D.C. 2011) ("A district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when the complaint 'is patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for decision.'") (quoting Tooley, 586 F.3d at 1009). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
___________________________
United States District Judge