Ackerman v. United States

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 7, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2026-0277
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LESTER P. ACKERMAN, IV, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 26-00277 (UNA) ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. )

Memorandum Opinion

This matter is before the court on its initial review of the plaintiff’s application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis and pro se complaint. ECF Nos. 1–2. The court grants the application

and dismisses the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii).

“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)). In addition, 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, see 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))); see also Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010

(D.C. Cir. 2009) (collecting cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality,” including where the

plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from

uncertain origins”). Consequently, the court must dismiss a complaint as frivolous when, as here,

1 “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, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

The plaintiff appears to allege that use of the term “molester” in the criminal context and

in the American vocabulary more broadly has caused “negative energy towards Lester” and “hate

and discrimination, defamation, and sexual harassment towards Lester.” ECF No. 1 at 1. In

addition to failing to state a claim for relief, the plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous on its face.

The court accordingly dismisses the complaint without prejudice. A separate order

accompanies this memorandum opinion.

DATE: April 2, 2026 /s/ AMIR H. ALI United States District Judge