Opinion
Civil Action 24-02414 (UNA)
10-29-2024
JONATHAN RICE, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH BIDEN et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CARL J. NICHOLS, United States District Judge
Plaintiff, a Georgia state prisoner appearing pro se, has filed a complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The Court will grant the IFP motion and dismiss this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (requiring immediate dismissal of a prisoner's complaint against a government official that is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).
In this action brought against President Joe Biden and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, Plaintiff alleges that in December 2010 when he was released from Hays State Prison in Trion, Georgia, then-President Barack Obama and Vice President Biden violated his constitutional rights by stating that Plaintiff could “start a civil war in America.” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 4. According to Plaintiff, “the Attorney General in Atlanta year 2010 stated that I be watch[ed] by a private satellite, people w[ere] talking about killing me when I got release[ed] from this prison . . . so they can start the civil war in America. They all stated they [were] sorry but nobody really tr[ied] to help me.” Id. Plaintiff alleges further that “the Obama Family wanted me to come to Washington, D.C., to the White House . . . so they can sit me down and talk to me of what's going on . . . in the world and dealing with China President and China Military.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff appears to offer his assistance to President Biden on matters pertaining to Russia, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and China because he “know[s]” that the Biden Administration is “having hard times.” Id. Plaintiff requests this Court's “help” with his “Petition of Habeas Corpus, to be release[d] from this prison,” id., namely, Hays State Prison in Georgia, id. at 3, but the immediate custodian rule precludes this district court from entertaining “a habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction.” Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
Crucially, a complaint supported as here by allegations lacking “an arguable basis either in law or in fact” may be dismissed as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible[.]”); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“A court may dismiss as frivolous complaints reciting bare legal conclusions with no suggestion of supporting facts, or postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind.”). Accordingly, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this opinion.