Aden v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 12, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-0977
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MOUSEN YISAK ADEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-0977 (UNA) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The Court will grant

the application and dismiss the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),

by which the Court must dismiss a case “at any time” if it determines that the action is frivolous.

According to plaintiff, “someone in U.S. Customs and Immigration Service withheld

[his] deportation,” Compl. at 5 (page numbers designated by CM/ECF), and in addition to his

“immediate deportation,” plaintiff demands “Recognition as the Prince:King of the principality

of Gelib, Somalia,” id., as well as “Head of State immunity,” id. at 10.

“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). On review

of the complaint, the Court concludes that its factual allegations are incoherent, irrational and

wholly incredible, rendering the complaint subject to dismissal as frivolous, see Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the

1 facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible[.]”), 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) (examining cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality”).

A separate order will issue.

DATE: April 12, 2023 /s/ TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge