Anderson v. Walt Disney Inc.
This text of Anderson v. Walt Disney Inc. (Anderson v. Walt Disney Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MICAH ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 22-cv-3770 (UNA)
WALT DISNEY INC.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF
No. 1, and applications for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF Nos. 2, 4, 8. The Court will
grant the in forma pauperis applications and dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(i), which mandates dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint if 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). Plaintiff’s
complaint is incomprehensible to say the least. What few factual allegations appearing therein
are incoherent, irrational or 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 facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
1 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: May 19, 2023 /s/ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Anderson v. Walt Disney Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-walt-disney-inc-dcd-2023.