Chen v. Distrcit of Columbia

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 28, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-1396
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MAY CHEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 24-01396 (UNA) ) ) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff May Chen, appearing pro se, has filed a Complaint, ECF No. 1, and an application

to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. For the following reasons, the court will grant the

application and dismiss the case.

Chen, a District of Columbia resident, has sued the District of Columbia, California, and

Maryland, seeking “criminal prosecution,” other injunctive relief, and a “monetary penalty of

$2850000000000000.” Compl. at 4. Chen states, without any factual support, that “from 2012 to

current, plaintiff sued the defendants court by court accusing” them of “vandalism, civil rights

violation (housing and employment), discrimination,” and other wrongs. Id.

Chen has not established that either California or Maryland has waived its immunity under

the Eleventh Amendment, which generally immunizes states from suits filed against them in

federal court. 1 Nor has Chen pleaded a basis for exercising jurisdiction over the District of

1 The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. The Supreme Court “long ago held that the Eleventh Amendment bars a citizen from bringing suit against the citizen’s own State in federal court, even though the express terms of the Amendment refer Columbia. Even so, federal courts lack “power to entertain claims otherwise within their

jurisdiction 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). 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/____________ AMIT P. MEHTA Date: May 28, 2024 United States District Judge

only to suits by citizens of another State.” Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 472 (1987).