Curtis v. Department of Defense

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: July 1, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2026-2292
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

J. ABIGAIL CUSTIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 26-2292 (UNA)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (ECF No. 2), her pro se complaint (ECF No. 1), and motions to seal the case (ECF No.

3) and for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 4).

The Court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). When a complaint is “‘patently

insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision,” the court lacks authority to

hear the case and dismissal is warranted. Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6 (1989)). That standard includes cases that are “so

attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528,

536–37 (1974) (quoting Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904)); see

also Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (collecting cases dismissed “for

patent insubstantiality,” including where the plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of

surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain origins”).

1 Plaintiff alleges that the Department of Defense made her “a non-consensual human

experiment with implanted medical device,” Compl. at 4, injected into her brain by syringe. See

ECF No. 1-2 (Exh. A-1) at 1–2. As a result, Plaintiff alleges, she spent the past 13 years of her

life “in a ‘virtual concentration camp like prison’ being electrocuted and tortured daily.” Compl.

at 4. She demands unspecified monetary damages. See id. Here, the complaint’s allegations are

patently insubstantial and deprive the Court of jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Court will GRANT the application to proceed in forma pauperis, even though it is

incomplete, as Plaintiff submitted only the second page of a two-page form. Further, the Court

will DISMISS the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and DENY

as moot Plaintiff’s motions to seal the case and for a temporary restraining order. A separate order

accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: July 1, 2026 JAMES E. BOASBERG Chief Judge United States District Court for the District of Columbia