“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible[.]”
How later courts described this case
- “[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible[.]”
- examining cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality”
- “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.’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JEFFREY LEE MOURNING,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 23-0996 (UNA)
JOHN BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF
No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant
the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(i),
which permits dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint if it 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). This
complaint alleges that defendants are agents of the Chinese government working against the
interests of the United States who, among other wrongful acts, caused devices to be implanted
into plaintiff’s body through which they conduct video and audio surveillance. Because the
complaint’s factual allegations are incoherent, irrational or wholly incredible, the complaint
1
subject to dismissal as frivolous. 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[.]”). 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”).
A separate order will issue.
DATE: June 1, 2023
BERYL A. HOWELL
United States District Judge
2