Chen v. Attorney General, District of Columbia

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 27, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-3104
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MAY CHEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 24-03104 (UNA) ) ) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Plaintiff May Chen, a District of Columbia resident, alleges that Defendants District

of Columbia, Maryland, and California owe her “a sum of money,” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1,

specifically “$5900000000000000000000 U.S. Dollars” based on a police report, ECF No. 1-1,

she claims is a promissory note, Compl. at 4. Allegedly, on September 21, 2024, Plaintiff “filed

several police reports accusing repeated” vandalism, reckless endangerment, hit and run, theft,

criminal threat, intentional harm, persecution, wrongful tickets, and financial crimes targeting her

after she served Defendants with “multiple lawsuits.” Id. at 5-6.

Plaintiff’s Complaint is captioned as brought under the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332,

but the states and the District of Columbia “are not subject to diversity jurisdiction.” Long v.

District of Columbia, 820 F.2d 409, 412-13 (D.C. Cir. 1987). In any event, federal courts lack

“power to entertain claims if,” as here, “they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely

devoid of merit.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (cleaned up). Therefore, this

case will be dismissed by separate order. See Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C.

Cir. 2009) (“A complaint may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds when it is ‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision.”) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39

F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).

_________/s/___________ ANA C. REYES Date: November 27, 2024 United States District Judge