WEISSER v. OBAMA et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION dismissing case. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 8/27/2013. (KD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARGUERITE WEISSER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARACK OBAMA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-1257 (RMC)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Marquerite Weisser, proceeding pro se, 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. She also challenges her husband’s custody of their minor
child. Notably, she alleges that Defendants stole her identity “using ‘Soul Catcher’ micro chip
technology,” Compl. [Dkt. 1] at 6, and that “Defendants have full control of the Plaintiff’s brain
and body and use 95% of her body functions,” id. at 21.
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, at
*1 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 2, 2010); 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.” 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); internal quotation marks

omitted). A complaint that alleges bizarre conspiracy theories, government manipulations of the
mind, or supernatural intervention is essentially fictitious. Best, 39 F.3d at 330-31; see Hagans
v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (federal courts are without power to decide claims if they
are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, wholly or plainly
insubstantial, or obviously frivolous) (citations and quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., Peters v.
Obama, Misc. No. 10-0298, 2010 WL 2541066, at *2 (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). Ms. Weisser’s allegations of
conspiracy and mind control in the present case are wholly and plainly insubstantial.
Further, to the extent that she seeks an award of child custody, the case falls
within the domestic-relations exception to federal diversity jurisdiction. “It is firmly established
that the federal courts do not have diversity jurisdiction to grant divorces, determine alimony and
support obligations, or resolve the conflicting claims of divorced parents to the custody of their
children.” Sutter v. Pitts, 639 F.2d 842, 843 (1st Cir. 1981) (holding that federal court lacked
jurisdiction to hear a suit asserting a demand for child custody); see also Ellison v Sadur, 700 F.
Supp. 54, 56-57 (D.D.C. 1988) (federal court lacked jurisdiction over suit to enforce a marital
separation and property settlement agreement).
Ms. Weisser cites no legal authority for her complaint; the facts alleged are
fantastical; and the demand for child custody is outside this Court’s jurisdiction. 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, 520-21
(1972); Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2008), this Court clearly
lacks the power to grant the relief Ms. Weisser seeks.
2

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. A memorializing
Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: August 27, 2013
/s/
ROSEMARY M. COLLYER
United States District Judge

3