RAYNOR v. UNITED STATES et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 7/1/2024. (znmw)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GILBERT RYAN RAYNOR, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 24-01420 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, and motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the motion and dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff, a resident of Suffolk, Virginia, has sued the United States and “The Constitution.” Compl. Caption. He alleges to “have been the ‘Victim’ of Acts of Inhumane, unconstitutional, degrading, torturous, unlawful treatments that fall under the same stature against said crimes, and treatments Due too [sic], Gross Negligence, By, Multitudes of, United States Departments, and agencies[.]” Compl. at 6. The allegations continue in this incomprehensible manner. See id. at 7 (quoting “18 U.S.C. § 1091 Genocide” and referencing, among other things, “Copyright infringement,” “Unauthorized Human experiments,” and “telepathy”). Plaintiff claims, for example, that “Gaius Julius Caesar, Nefertiti of Egypt, Queen Elizabeth II of England,” President Joe Biden, and former Presidents Donald Trump, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan all “had knowledge of these crimes committed against my person and of the Deeds and Feats I undertook and accomplished during the times the Genocidal crimes were being committed against my person.” Id. at 8. Allegedly, Plaintiff “made” all of those individuals “aware of One (1) the upcoming COVID Pandemic, and Two (2) a vaccine for COVID-19 that was for canines in the 80’s.” Id. Plaintiff describes his injuries as “Brain tissue attacked and damaged. Verbally and emotional Distresses. Globally exposed as The Higher power witch [sic] causes Distresses of a different form because of Telepathy universally exposed (there’s 8 billion people on this planet that learned who I am exactly).” Id. at 9. He seeks, among other relief, an award of “$20 million, yearly, and consecutively. . . from the year in which ‘The Spider’ was added to the United States Dollar in 1932” and “$200 billion for Genocidal treatments, Violations of Rights to Privacy, and treasonous Acts endured, weathered and unlawfully infringed upon, Thyself, Due too [sic] Gross Negligence, of a mass degree by Country men, and women alike. In and Out, of Official capacity.” Id. at 10. Complaints, as here, that are supported wholly by allegations lacking “an arguable basis either in law or in fact” may be dismissed as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The term frivolous “embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Id. In addition, a complaint “is properly dismissed as frivolous” when “it is clear from the face of the pleading that the named defendant is absolutely immune from suit on the claims asserted.” Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The United States is immune from lawsuits save “clear congressional consent,” United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980), and a waiver of such immunity “must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text,” Mowrer v. United States Dep’t of Transportation, 14 F.4th 723, 728 (D.C. Cir. 2021). Plaintiff has cited no authority waiving the United States’s immunity. In any case, federal courts “are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if,” as here, “they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, wholly insubstantial, [or] 2 obviously frivolous[.]” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (cleaned up). Consequently, this case will be dismissed by separate order. _________/s/____________ TIMOTHY J. KELLY United States District Judge Date: July 1, 2024 3

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?