JORDAN v. LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 01/19/2023. (zljn)
Case 1:23-cv-00026-UNA Document 3 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Civil Action No. 23-0026 (UNA)
This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The Court will grant
the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), by which the Court must dismiss a case “at any time” if it determines
that the action is frivolous.
Generally, plaintiff alleges that he has been and continues to be harassed by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the Los Angeles Police Department, and other law enforcement
agencies. For example, the FBI allegedly “is . . . terrorizing plaintiff through an illegal warfare
chemical system,” Compl., Ex. (ECF No. 1-1) at 4 (page numbers designated by CM/ECF), is
“cyberhacking [his] medical records[,] email account, [and] cell phone,” id., and is responsible
for hacking microprocessors in his car, see id. at 20, such that the vehicle’s warning lights can be
triggered, brakes can be disabled, radio stations can be changed, and the engine can be disabled
remotely, see id. at 20-21. In addition, law enforcement officers in Los Angeles allegedly are
responsible for “blackballing, terrorism, stalking, and various other illegal activities,” id. at 23,
prompting plaintiff to Leave Los Angeles and move elsewhere., see id. at 24. And, plaintiff
Case 1:23-cv-00026-UNA Document 3 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 2
alleges, he sleepwalks as a result of “some kind of mental manipulation/wave system,” or
“chemical weaponry, wave, [or] brain computer interface.” Id. at 12. As compensation for the
injuries defendants have caused, plaintiff demands an award of $6 million, among other relief.
See id. at 13.
“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). On review
of the complaint, the Court concludes that its factual allegations are incoherent, irrational or
wholly incredible, rendering the complaint 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: January 19, 2023
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?