ZHOU v. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding 2 Order dismissing Complaint with prejudice. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 4/11/2012. (lcjeb3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

QINGSHENG ZHOU,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 12-552 (JEB)

THE UNITED SUPREME COURT
JUDGE WHO REPRESENTED ME IN
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Qingsheng Zhou has filed a three-page Complaint that makes no sense
whatsoever. Plaintiff first alleges that he – the Court assumes Plaintiff is male – wants “the
judges in the America National Super Court [to] protect my life.” Compl. at 1. He then alleges
that the Supreme Court “sent a team to the International Court . . . [and] used my name, my
images, my voice and . . . won the case.” Id. “The United States Supreme Court judge took my
American national reward money.” Id. at 2. These legal references then degenerate into claims
that “mind-readers harass me day and night . . . [and] shoot me from the apartment that is
underneath my apartment.” Id. This shooting leads to all types of pain. Id. Finally, there are
allegations about stolen bank statements, damage to Plaintiff’s house, and poison in his food. Id.
at 3. He seeks as relief “two hundred millions plus witness protection for thirty years.” Id.
“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, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, plainly unsubstantial,
or no longer open to discussion.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (citations and

internal quotations omitted); see also Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (may
dismiss claims that are “essentially fictitious” – for example, where they suggest “bizarre
conspiracy theories . . . [or] fantastic government manipulations of their will or mind”) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted). This is precisely what the Complaint alleges here.
The Court is 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, 520 (1972). Having reviewed Plaintiff=s Complaint, the Court concludes that the
factual contentions that are identifiable are baseless and wholly incredible. For this reason, the
Complaint is frivolous and must be dismissed.

/s/ James E. Boasberg
JAMES E. BOASBERG
United States District Judge
Date: April 11, 2012

2