ISOM v. GUTERRES et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 5/20/2024. (znmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TYESHA ISOM,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANTONIO GUTERRES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01104 (UNA)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint
(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The
court grants the in forma pauperis application and, for the reasons explained below, it dismisses
the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
“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), and a “complaint plainly
abusive of the judicial process is properly typed malicious,” Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305,
1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
Here, plaintiff, a resident of Denton, Texas, sues the Secretary-General of the United
Nations and the Denton County District Attorney, citing, without any explanation, the Ohio and
Texas local codes, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. See Compl. at 1–3. The complaint
is vague and rambling, alleging a wide-spread conspiracy, and oscillating through disparate topics,
including, “UN General irresponsibility,” “Haiti women with drug addiction and AIDS,” genocide,

“borrowed money from foreign corporations,” “the NFL Soccer Federation,” online sports
gambling, homelessness, “security on [plaintiff’s] properties,” “US Tax payer’s revenue,” and
“foreign soldiers” in the United States armed forces. See id. at 6. Plaintiff demands “500 billion
dollars to the US federation,” and asks this court to “restore sanity in the US economy[.]” See id.
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,” including where the
plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from
uncertain origins.”). A court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to
the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992),
or “postulat[e] events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind,” Crisafi, 655 F.2d at 1307–08.
The instant complaint satisfies this standard.
Consequently, the complaint and this case are dismissed without prejudice. A separate
order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: May 20, 2024

__________/s/_____________
AMIT P. MEHTA
United States District Judge