Ackerman, IV v. United States

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: January 12, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-4385
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LESTER P. ACKERMAN, IV

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 25 - 4385 (LLA)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the court is Plaintiff Lester P. Ackerman IV’s complaint, ECF No. 1, and motion to

proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The court will grant the application to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismiss the complaint as frivolous under 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 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). 28 U.S.C. § 1915 requires a court to dismiss a case “at any time if the court determines

that . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous.” Consequently, the court is obligated to dismiss a complaint as frivolous when, as here, “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 v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir.

1981).

Mr. Ackerman claims that the United States “has caused hate and discrimination” toward

him by “using the term molester in the crimnal [sic] justice system to discribe [sic] a crime”

because the word “molester” rhymes with Mr. Ackerman’s first name, Lester. ECF No. 1, at 4.

Among other relief, Mr. Ackerman demands an award of $37 trillion to be placed in the “Lester

Trust for people affected by . . . criminal negligence” and a “change [in] the vocabulay [sic] of the

justice system.” Id. at 4-5.

The court concludes that Mr. Ackerman’s claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact

because his core assertions are wholly irrational. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. The court will

accordingly grant Mr. Ackerman’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and dismiss

his complaint, ECF No. 1, without prejudice.

LOREN L. ALIKHAN United States District Judge Date: January 12, 2026