Elmore v. States Department of South Carolina

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KENNETH CHARLES ELMORE, III, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00256 (UNA) v. ) ) STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) SOUTH CAROLINA, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No.

1, supplement to the complaint, ECF No. 3, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

ECF No. 2. The court will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

“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 a “complaint plainly

abusive of the judicial process is properly typed malicious,” Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305,

1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

Here, plaintiff, who states that he is homeless and provides a Summerville, South Carolina,

mailing address, sues the “States Department of South Carolina,” as well as several individuals

and “families,” located in South Carolina and Georgia. The allegations are nebulous. Plaintiff

alleges that defendants and others, including the mafia, have conspired to control his mind through

drones and by placing a bomb in his head. He further contends that these bad actors have framed him and committed many crimes, including the attempted murder of United States Presidents and

others. From there, the complaint becomes even more digressive and difficult to understand.

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 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 the

plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from

uncertain origins.”). A court may 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, 655 F.2d at 1307–08.

The instant complaint and its supplement, filed without leave of court, satisfy this standard.

Consequently, the complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order

accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: April 14, 2023

Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge