Collins v. United States

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 3, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-0228
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JESSICA LEIGH COLLINS,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 25-cv-228 (RDM) v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Jessica Leigh Collins, proceeding pro se, brings this action against the United

States to “address its sex trafficking and racketeering in conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein and high

ranking Officials for The United States of America.” Dkt. 1 at 7 (Compl.). The 142-page

complaint alleges a vast human-trafficking conspiracy and cover-up involving numerous public

figures, including Joe Biden, John McCain, Alec Baldwin, Mark Zuckerberg, and Julian

Assange, among others. See id. at 22 (Compl. ¶ 33). Plaintiff explains that she is “suing the

United States of America because Federal Officials trafficked [her] and [her] daughter.” Id. at

23 (Compl. ¶ 35). Plaintiff alleges that “Federal Officials” violated her constitutional rights, as

well as various federal criminal and civil rights laws. See id. at 23 (Compl. ¶ 36).

Where, as here, the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will hold her pleadings “to

less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.

89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Even pro se litigants, however,

must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239

(D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court's jurisdiction depends, a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand

for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum

standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to

prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the

doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule

8(a). The complaint and its exhibits span 142 pages. See generally Dkt. 1 (Compl.). Plaintiff

alleges violations of her constitutional and statutory rights, but her allegations are vague and

cryptic. She alleges, for example, “deliberate torment,” “Treason of Presidents,” and that the

“U.S. Government, through manipulation and direct action, has worked with private corporations

. . . to unlawfully suppress [Plaintiff’s] First Amendment rights.” Id. at 31, 34 (Compl. ¶¶ 58–59,

67). Plaintiff provides no intelligible information about when or where these events occurred.

The trial court, moreover, has the discretion to decide whether a complaint is frivolous,

and such finding is appropriate when the facts alleged are irrational or wholly incredible. See

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). And “a complaint, containing as it does both

factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in

law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see Brandon v. District of

Columbia Bd. of Parole, 734 F.2d 56, 59 (D.C. Cir. 1984); cf. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967) (defining frivolous appeal as one without “arguable” merit). The Court may sua sponte

dismiss a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) where “it is patently

obvious” that the plaintiff cannot “prevail[] on the facts alleged in his complaint.” Baker v.

Director, U.S. Parole Comm'n, 916 F.2d 725, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1990); see also Strunk v. Obama,

2 880 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2011). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court concludes

that it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact and should be dismissed.

For the reasons stated, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. A separate order shall

issue.

/s/ Randolph D. Moss RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge

Date: February 3, 2025