Opinion
Civil Action 1:24-cv-00334 (CJN)
07-31-2024
GARY V. JENKINS, Plaintiff, v. ROGER WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
CARL J. NICHOLS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pro se plaintiff Gary Jenkins has filed an incoherent complaint against a multitude of defendants. The Court dismisses the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
This is the entirety of the substantive portion of Jenkins' complaint:
On 4/19/2021 Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island averred that it made payments to the DEFENDANT(S) on listed dates. IAFF Local 850's obligation of fair representation would be satisfied so long as the procedure affords the ability to place all relevant information before the union. Henrickson v. Town of E. Greenwich, 94 F.Supp.3d 180, 184 (D.R.I. 2015). Treasonable acts have occurred. CIVIL CHARGES: 29 U.S. Code § 178; 29 U.S. Code § 186; CRIMINAL CHARGES: 18 U.S. Code § 2(b); 18a U.S. Code § 12; 18 U.S. Code § 152; 18 U.S. Code § 210; 18 U.S. Code § 601; 18 U.S. Code § 1035; 18 U.S. Code § 2384 Requested Relief: Under 29 U.S. Code § 186 - $15000.00; 7/1/2018 City of East Providence personnel list; 7/1/2019 Rhode Island Hospital, PLAINTIFF records.ECF No. 1.
The Court cannot exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over complaints that are “so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536 (1974) (cleaned up); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994). “While pro se complaints must be construed liberally, they are nonetheless properly dismissed sua sponte when the claims are patently frivolous.” Jean-Baptiste v. DOJ, No. 23-cv-1054, 2023 WL 336770, at *1 (D.D.C. May 31, 2023).
The complaint here is plainly “patently insubstantial.” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009). It provides no explanation of the wrongdoing alleged, other than to imply some sort of wide-ranging conspiracy spanning doctors, hospitals, the IRS, firefighters, Donald Trump, and a linen supply company to commit “[t]reasonable acts.” ECF No. 1.
It is therefore ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
The Clerk is directed to terminate this case.
This is a final appealable order.