Correa v. Defense Intelligence Agency

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 7, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-0006
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ELIZZ MARIE CORREA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-00006 (UNA) ) DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP application and dismisses the

complaint.

Plaintiff sues the Defense Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, Federal

Bureau of Investigation, and presumably the Department of Justice’s National Gang Intelligence

Center. Compl., ECF No. 1 at 4. The complaint is unintelligible. As the basis for federal court

jurisdiction, Plaintiff writes: “I must look responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic. The statute of

national disasters must continue, example WWIII with a human sacrifice again.” Id. at 7. Plaintiff

claims to be “a weapon of destruction” and either seeks or claims to have $1 billion. Id. at 8.

Under statement of claim, Plaintiff writes “passing assaults” and lists two addresses in Georgia.

Id. Since lodging the complaint, Plaintiff has cluttered the docket with equally puzzling exhibits,

ECF Nos. 8-62.

A complaint determined, as here, to lack “an arguable basis either in law or in fact,” Neitzke

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), is appropriately dismissed as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly

incredible[.]”); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“A court may dismiss

as frivolous complaints . . . postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind.”).

Because no “allegation of other facts” could plausibly cure the deficiencies of the complaint, this

case will be dismissed with prejudice. Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

(per curiam). A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

_________/s/_____________ TANYA S. CHUTKAN Date: April 7, 2025 United States District Judge