Opinion
Civil Action 1:23-cv-00955 (UNA)
04-19-2023
TARA MIKENAS, Plaintiff, v. OWNER OF EARTH CAFE, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
TANYA S. CHUTKAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint 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 the 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 plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain origins.”). Consequently, 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 v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The instant complaint satisfies this standard.
Defendant allegedly is the “Russian/Ukranian mob boss” from whom plaintiff's father receives money. Compl. at 1. He and others allegedly “cage [plaintiff] in” and will not permit her to hire lawyers or receive paychecks “for the purpose of exploiting [her] financially.” Id. In addition, defendant allegedly works with plaintiff's father and the Federal Bureau of Investigation “to hide [her] fame . . . [and] keep [plaintiff] a secret for political people to use [her] intellectual property.” Id. Plaintiff is “suing for mental and emotional damages, over one million dollars.” Id. Given its irrational and fanciful allegations, this complaint is frivolous on its face and, therefore, it will be dismissed without prejudice.
An Order is issued separately.