Aden v. United States

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 12, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2026-1252
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MOUSEN YISAK ADEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-01252 (UNA) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint

(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The

Court grants the in forma pauperis Application, and for the reasons discussed below, dismisses

this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), by which the Court is required to dismiss an

action at any time if it determines that it is frivolous.

“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 a “complaint plainly

abusive of the judicial process is properly typed malicious,” Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305,

1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues the United States. See Compl. at 1–

2. The Complaint is largely, if not completely, unintelligible. As best understood, Plaintiff

purports to be the “heir” to one or more “royal bloodlines,” and an “immortal” “son of God” and

“prince priest,” asks the Court to recognize his right to “govern the united states as a dual throne as stated in ezekiel 10 of the eagle that was thorn from lion,” and to ensure that “a vote be held

wherein everyone puts their device number, self, identification card and fingerprint software be

attained or programed . . . and send votes to allow” him to serve as “commander of the people.”

See id. at 3–5.

As here, 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)). A court shall dismiss a

complaint as frivolous “when 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, 655 F.2d at 1307–08. The instant Complaint

falls squarely into this category.

Accordingly, the Complaint and this case are dismissed without prejudice. A separate

Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: June 12, 2026

Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge