Carter v. Mueller
This text of Carter v. Mueller (Carter v. Mueller) 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 F I L E D
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUL 2 7 2011 Audrey€w@r» ) éi,'.i{'é; 1’.;?¢»\‘1'%‘.'.1.?..‘~§5?"¢‘§,'.‘.'.'.’§‘§,11 ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. j 11 1366 Robert Mueller, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
'l`his matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(€), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, is frivolous, 28 U.S.C, § 191 S(e)(Z)(B)(i), or upon a determination that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff, a resident of Burlington, New Jersey, sues a variety of individuals, including such high-level officials as President Barack Obama, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller, and former Central Intelligence Agency Director (noW Secretary of Defense) Leon Panetta, and such ce1ebrities as Oprah Winfrey and Donald Trump. See Compl. Caption. Plaintiff’ s outlandish allegations of discrimination, rape, and "illegal research" are the type of fantastic or delusional scenarios warranting dismissal under § 19l5(e)(2) as frivolous. See Nez`tzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, the allegations "constitute the sort of patently insubstantial claims" that deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010
(D.C. Cir. 20()9); see Caldwell v. Kagan, __ F. Supp.2d _, 2011 WL 1460432, at * 1 (D.D.C.,
Apr. 18, 2011) ("A district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when the complaint ‘is patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for decision.' ") (quotz`ng Tooley, 586 F.3d
at 1009). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
643 »<..da~ » united states Dis{riet Judge ’ Date:July 31 ,2011
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Carter v. Mueller, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-mueller-dcd-2011.