From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Julius v. Cheek

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Sep 26, 2012
Civil Action No. 12 1601 (D.D.C. Sep. 26, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12 1601

09-26-2012

Tyrone Julius, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Cheek, Defendant.


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 consisting of scribble. The only clear thing in the complaint is plaintiff's demand for $199,999,999.00. 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, 777 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


Summaries of

Julius v. Cheek

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Sep 26, 2012
Civil Action No. 12 1601 (D.D.C. Sep. 26, 2012)
Case details for

Julius v. Cheek

Case Details

Full title:Tyrone Julius, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Cheek, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Date published: Sep 26, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 12 1601 (D.D.C. Sep. 26, 2012)