Gill v. Block by Block Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
________________________________________
)
ANDREW GILL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 21-cv-02668 (APM)
)
BLOCK BY BLOCK INC., et al. )
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Andrew Gill brings this action complaining of race and sex discrimination,
defamation, and unpaid wages by his former employer, Defendant Mydatt Service, Inc., d/b/a
Block by Block. Def.’s Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, Ex. A, Compl., ECF No. 1-2 [hereinafter
Compl.]. 1 Because Plaintiff’s claims are patently frivolous, the court sua sponte dismisses the
Complaint and this action. 2
“[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) (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)). Claims are insubstantial and frivolous
if they are “essentially fictitious” or advance “bizarre conspiracy theories,” “fantastic government
1
Plaintiff also lists in the caption as a Defendant “Georgetown BID,” but from his Complaint it is unclear whether
Georgetown BID is a different entity or the same as Block by Block.
2
Although Defendant Block by Block has moved to dismiss, Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, it did not address
the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, which the court has an independent obligation to consider.
manipulations of [one’s] will or mind,” or some type “of supernatural intervention.” Best v. Kelly,
39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). In such cases, a district
court may dismiss the case sua sponte. See id.Here, although Plaintiff’s Complaint alludes to real causes of action, the “factual” support
for those claims render them “absolutely devoid of merit” and “obviously frivolous.” At the start,
Plaintiff says he “files [the] complaint at the request of the FBI.” Compl. at 5. 3 He alleges that
his employer harassed him for “submitting to a [series] of polygraph examinations regarding illegal
activity noticed and seen by the plaintiff in the state of Florida.” Id. He continues, “Plaintiff
further complains that upon calling the FBI who investigated members of the Georgetown BID
including [former D.C. Councilmember] Jack Evans that they found multiple [Ethical] Violations
and more.” Id. Elsewhere he alleges an altercation over discovering that a “Joseph Sternlib and
Georgetown BID [were] not really recycling.” Id. He further claims that Defendant, among other
things, “search[ed] his belongings, for a gun [repeatedly]”; threatened to fire him for submitting
to polygraph examinations “over child pornographic material”; “attacked [him] regarding the
Defendant’s lack of recycling”; and “[concealed] child pornographic material.” Id. at 5–6. Other
references in the Complaint include: “the famous Kennedy Family,” a “rape of a Mrs. Karena
Johnson in the state of IL by a Crip Gang Member,” “the [Capitol] Riots,” and his submission of
a polygraph “regarding the Terrorist Bin Laden.” Id. at 6. In the end, Plaintiff insists he is “fine
and not mentally ill reporting problems in Georgetown,” and asks, “how can you tell the plaintiff
he cannot report child [pornography] or submit to a polygraph on child [pornography] or anything
illegal or going on at all?” Id. at 7.
3
Page cites are to the page number assigned by CM/ECF.
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 claims are 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: April 20, 2022 Amit P. Mehta
United States District Court Judge