Confidential v. Regents of the University of California
This text of Confidential v. Regents of the University of California (Confidential v. Regents of the University of California) 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 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CONFIDENTIAL PLAINTIFF, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civ. No. 25-cv-3429 (UNA) ) ) REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) OF CALIFORNIA, 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) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1). The Court will
grant the application and dismiss the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and dismiss plaintiff’s pending motions (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 7-9) without
prejudice 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
1 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”).
Consequently, the 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 satisfies
this standard and, therefore, it will be dismissed without prejudice.
It appears that plaintiff found himself in the care or custody of defendants, among
which are psychiatric and behavioral health facilities in California, police departments in
Santa Monica and Los Angeles, California, and psychiatrists who had treated him at
various times since 1989. See generally Compl. at 9-14, 24-32 (page numbers designated
by CM/ECF). Allegedly, “defendants engaged in a deliberate and sustained campaign to
silence, discredit, and isolate Plaintiff and his support network through the concerted use
of psychiatric authority, institutional power, and coordinated psychological operations.”
Id. at 6. In vague and conclusory terms, plaintiff alleges coordinated efforts by defendants
to fabricate psychiatric diagnoses for the purpose of effecting plaintiff’s
institutionalization, to deny him medical treatment, to separate him from family members,
and to defame him, among other actions, characterized by plaintiff as racketeering activity. 2 See generally id. at 15-32. In addition, plaintiff alleges, defendants subjected him to “non-
consensual, covert, and unethical research – including psychological experimentation,
drug trials, and behavioral modification – without informed consent or regulatory
oversight," id. at 34, and subjected “individuals connected to [p]laintiff, including romantic
partners, family members, and community associates . . . to intimidation, psychological
manipulation, reputational harm, and forced separation, with the intent and effecting of
isolating [p]laintiff and dismantling his support network,” id. at 34-35.
Having reviewed all of plaintiff’s submissions, particularly the complaint,
Comparative Racial Justice Analysis (ECF No. 3-2), Comprehensive Legal Report & Brief
(ECF No. 3-3), and Emergency Relief Motion (ECF No. 5), the Court concludes that
plaintiff’s factual allegations, to the extent they are intelligible, are both fanciful and
patently insubstantial.
A separate order will issue.
DATE: November 6, 2025 JAMES E. BOASBERG Chief Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Confidential v. Regents of the University of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/confidential-v-regents-of-the-university-of-california-dcd-2025.