White v. Secret Service

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
MONIQUE WHITE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 19-cv-00900 (APM)
)
SECRET SERVICE, )
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant Secret Service removed this matter to this court from the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. For the reasons stated below, the
court dismisses the Complaint and this action sua sponte.
It is well-settled that “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,
wholly insubstantial, [or] obviously frivolous.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974)
(cleaned up). A complaint will be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
when it is “‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Best v.
Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6
(1989)). Claims are patently insubstantial if they are “essentially fictitious,” for example,
advancing “bizarre conspiracy theories,” “fantastic government manipulations of [one’s] will or
mind,” or some type of “supernatural intervention.” Id. at 330. In such cases, a district court
may dismiss the case sua sponte. See Lewis v. Bayh, 577 F. Supp. 2d 47, 54 (D.D.C. 2008)
(quoting Brown v. Dist. Unemployment Comp. Bd., 411 F. Supp. 1001, 1001–02 (D.D.C. 1975)
(noting that “a district court has the power to dismiss a case sua sponte if it is frivolous”)).
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint rests on the kind of fantastic and delusional claims that warrant
dismissal sua sponte. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that there was a “[m]icrochip place inside of
[her] and [she] didn’t ask for it,” that the “Secret Service has been trying to kill [her] with
‘CANCER’ and killed a lot of [her] family members,” and that “[t]he Russians have been and is
still poisoning [her].” See Notice of Removal, Complaint, ECF No. 1-1 at 1. The court is
permitted to dismiss a complaint containing such allegations. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at
325; see also Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307–08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“A court may dismiss
as frivolous complaints . . . postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind.”).
Accordingly, upon sua sponte review, this action is dismissed.
A separate final, appealable order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Dated: April 2, 2019 Amit P. Mehta
United States District Judge
2