Opinion
Civil Action No. 18-1594 (UNA)
07-27-2018
Matthew Irvin, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Department of Justice et al., Defendants.
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. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or is frivolous).
Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires complaints to contain "(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). In addition, a "complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Plaintiff, a resident of Washington, D.C., sues President Donald Trump, the Department of Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and several individuals. See Compl. Caption. He seeks monetary relief "totaling" $600 million. Compl. at 18. Although a notation on the first page of the handwritten complaint mentions the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act, plaintiff does not allege that he submitted a request of any kind to an agency, let alone one that resulted in the denial of records under the FOIA or a right under the Privacy Act. Rather, plaintiff begins by alleging that his "life [is] in Great Danger because of issues of radioactive lethal chemicals, nano-particles, radiological device such as modified microwave oven laser weapon, nom-nuclear electromagnetic pulse [illegible], infrasound, isotropic radiactors [sic], implanted with GSP chips by CIA and FBI defendants." Compl. at 3 (parenthesis omitted). The allegations continue in that largely incomprehensible manner, describing scenarios courts have rejected as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (a court may dismiss claims that are "essentially fictitious"-- for example, where they suggest "bizarre conspiracy theories . . . [or] fantastic government manipulations of their will or mind") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ("A court may dismiss as frivolous complaints . . . postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind."). So, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: July 27, 2018
/s/_________
United States District Judge