Bordages v. U.S. Department of Justice

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: August 11, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2396
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JAMES HARRY HEBERT BORDAGES, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civ. No. 25-cv-2396 (UNA) ) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 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), pro se complaint (ECF No. 1), motion to appear remotely

(ECF No. 3) and motion in limine (ECF No. 4). The Court will grant the application, dismiss the

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as frivolous, and deny the motions as moot.

“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) (examining cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality,” including where plaintiff allegedly

“was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain origins.”). 1 Consequently, a Court is obligated to 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 v. Holland,

655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

The instant complaint, which alleges that defendants “implanted a nanotech probe with a

diseased vector into [Plaintiff’s] head,” Compl. ¶ 5, which since has been used to monitor and

manipulate him for more than 15 years, see id. ¶ 6, causing him “daily electromagnetic and

psychological torture,” id. ¶ 11, satisfies the standard for a frivolous complaint. The Court will,

accordingly, dismiss the complaint. A separate order will issue.

/s/ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge DATE: August 11, 2025