HERRING v. FOXHALL GYNECOLOGY et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 3/15/13.(ah)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Angela Marie Herring,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 13-0028 (JDB)

Foxhall Gynecology et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The federal defendant, United States Attorney Ronald Machen, removed this civil action
from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and now moves to dismiss the complaint
under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Dkt. # 10]. Also
pending is the motion of Defendant Foxhall OB/GYN Associates, P.C., to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6) or for summary judgment under Rule 56. [Dkt. # 7]. On March 14, 2013, plaintiff filed
a “Motion to Cease and Desist and Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. # 12],” which addresses
both motions to dismiss. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges in its entirety the following:
On the night of 10/13/12 @ 24th & L Street NW outside of the West End
Library, I was assaulted and involuntarily given a gynecology procedure
by members of Foxhall Gynecology brought by Kirk Freeman & Ronald
Machen who rendered me incapacitated, wherein I was given a pelvic
exam on the sidewalk.
Compl. [Dkt. 1-1, ECF p. 6]. Plaintiff demands $120 million in damages. Id. In her pending
motion, which the Court considers also as her opposition to defendants’ motions, plaintiff
expounds on her scurrilous claims, adding, inter alia, that on the night of the alleged attack, U.S.
Attorney Machen “raped” her, “brought Ultiva anesthesia powder[,] placed it in [her] mouth at

1

the site of the West End Library[,] . . . and drugged [her] involuntarily, prior to the sexual assault
and involuntary pelvic exam.” Pl.’s Mot. at 3.
“A complaint may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds when it ‘is patently
insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Tooley v. Napolitano,
586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir.
1994)). In addition, dismissal on jurisdictional grounds is warranted when the complaint
“postulat[es] events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind.” Crisafi v. Holland, 655
F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981). As the Court has determined in plaintiff’s related case
listing Machen and Foxhall Associates as defendants, see Herring v. V Street Freddie House,
Civ. Action No. 13-27, the instant complaint is so frivolous as to deprive the Court of subject
matter jurisdiction. Hence, this case will be dismissed with prejudice. See also Herring v.
Holder, Civ. Action No. 13-160 (UNA) (D.D.C. Feb. 5, 2013) (dismissing sua sponte
plaintiff’s similarly pled complaint as frivolous). A separate Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.

____________s/________________
JOHN D. BATES
United States District Judge
Dated: March 15, 2013

2