“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, wholly insubstantial, [or] obviously frivolous”
How later courts described this case
- “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, wholly insubstantial, [or] obviously frivolous”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
MARGUERITE WEISSER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civil Action No. 13-1257 (ESH)
)
BARACK OBAMA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Marquerite Weisser, who is proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint against a
lengthy list of defendants, including the President of the United States, the First Lady, the
Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of Microsoft, her ex-husband, and
others, alleging that the government has unlawfully connected to her brain and is using it for
military projects against her will and also challenging her husband’s custody of their minor child.
A district court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte prior to service on the defendants,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), when it is evident that the court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction. See Evans v. Suter, No. 09-5242, 2010 WL 1632902 (D.C. Cir. Apr.
2, 2010) (citing Hurt v. U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir., No. 07-5019, 2008 WL 441786
(D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 2008); Scholastic Entertainment, Inc. v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., 326
F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003); Zernial v. United States, 714 F.2d 431, 433-34 (5th Cir. 1983)).
Subject matter jurisdiction is lacking where a complaint “is patently insubstantial presenting no
federal question suitable for decision.” Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994), quoted
in Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009). A claim is “patently
insubstantial” when it is “flimsier than doubtful or questionable . . . essentially fictitious.” Id.
(internal quotations omitted); see Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (“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, wholly insubstantial, [or]
obviously frivolous”); see, e.g., Peters v. Obama, Misc. No. 10-0298, 2010 WL 2541066
(D.D.C. June 21, 2010) (sua sponte dismissing complaint alleging that President Obama had
been served with and failed to respond to an “Imperial Writ of Habeas Corpus” by the “Imperial
Dominion of Axemem,” requiring the plaintiff’s immediate release from a correctional
institution).
To the extent they are comprehensible; plaintiff’s allegations in the present case present
“no federal question suitable for decision.” Best, 39 F.3d at 330. She cites no legal authority for
her complaint. Although mindful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less
stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, see Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1283 (D.C. Cir.
2008), the Court clearly lacks the power to grant the relief plaintiff seeks.
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this case sua sponte pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately.
/s/
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
United States District Judge
Date: August 21, 2013
2