ROTHFELD ZOLDAN v. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION re: Plaintiff's #1 Complaint. Please see the attached Memorandum Opinion for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 2/17/2021. (lcapm1)

Case 1:21-cv-00388-APM Document 2 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________

)
IDO DOV ROTHFELD ZOLDAN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_________________________________________ )

Case No. 21-cv-00388 (APM)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Ido dov rothfeld Zoldan brings this action as his deceased brother’s heir to enforce
a purported “agreement” between the United States and his brother.

Compl., ECF No. 1

[hereinafter Compl.]. Because Plaintiff’s claims are patently frivolous, the court sua sponte
dismisses the Complaint and this action.
“[F]ederal 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” or “obviously
frivolous.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974) (citations omitted) (internal quotation
marks omitted); see also Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“A
complaint may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds when ‘it is patently insubstantial, presenting
no federal question suitable for decision.’” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Best v.
Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994))). Claims are insubstantial and frivolous if they are
“essentially fictitious” or advance “bizarre conspiracy theories,” “fantastic government
manipulations of [one’s] will or mind,” or some type of “supernatural intervention.” Best, 39 F.3d

Case 1:21-cv-00388-APM Document 2 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 2

at 330 (internal quotation marks omitted). In such cases, a district court may dismiss the case sua
sponte. See id.
Here, Plaintiff alleges that “he is the legal heir of [his brother] Zvika, who entered into an
agreement with the federal government regarding the manufacture of an Israeli weapon sketched
by him, of the type ‘Tavor,’” Compl. ¶ 1, and that “according to the agreement Zvika is the son of
all future presidents,” id. ¶ 3. Plaintiff says he “will argue that the agreement provides that his
brother would receive anything he wants,” id. ¶ 5, and as his brother’s legal heir, he is “entitled to
benefits and to be recognized as a U.S. citizen,” id. ¶ 9 (emphasis omitted).
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). But Plaintiff’s claim is clearly fantastic, delusional, and “essentially
fictitious.” Best, 39 F.3d at 330 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the court
dismisses the Complaint and this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A separate final, appealable order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Dated: February 17, 2021

Amit P. Mehta
United States District Court Judge

2