Gilliard v. U.S. Treasury Department Archive

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: August 11, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2237
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RASHEEM GILLIARD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civ. No. 25-cv-2237 (UNA) ) ) US TREASURY DEPARTMENT, ) ) Defendant. )

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 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

“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 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, a Court is obligated to dismiss a complaint as frivolous “when the facts alleged rise 1 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.

Plaintiff fancies himself a diplomat of United States, Compl. at 3, to whom “multi-trillions”

of dollars are owed, id. at 4. In addition, plaintiff claims an entitlement to stolen property

including, it appears, property the United States Treasury stole from his accounts. See id. at 5.

There are so few factual allegations, or coherent allegations, that the Court cannot discern what

plaintiff is alleging. Thus, it is impossible to determine—as the Court must—that it has jurisdiction

over this matter. The Court will, accordingly, dismiss the action for failure to allege facts sufficient

to sustain the Article III jurisdiction.

A separate order will issue.

DATE: August 11, 2025 /s/ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge