Heaven v. Doe

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 14, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-1214
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MATTHEW HEAVEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civ. No. 25-1214 (UNA) ) ) JOHN DOE 1, 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), pro se complaint (ECF No. 1), and motions for waiver

of PACER fees (ECF No. 3) and to correct a clerical error (ECF No. 4). The Court will grant the

application, dismiss the complaint and this civil action without prejudice, and deny the motions

without prejudice as moot.

Plaintiff brings this action against five unidentified Defendants, all of whom allegedly are

affiliated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and who, on the FBI’s behalf, “intentionally

orchestrated a trap targeting Plaintiff.” Compl. ¶ 44. Defendants allegedly have engaged in all

manner of wrongdoing, including, for example, creating “records asserting that Plaintiff was an

incompetent driver,” id. ¶ 15, gaining “unauthorized access to [his] phone and hack[ing] it,” id. ¶

9, causing an unidentified individual to “mega aggressively [knock] on the door of Plaintiff’s

residence . . . , displaying extreme hostility and seemingly intending to cause distress and fear to

Plaintiff and his family,” id. ¶ 49, “us[ing] symbolism behind dates and numbers,” id. ¶ 53, and

“installing unauthorized remote access technology to commandeer [the control system of

Plaintiff’s vehicle] while Plaintiff operated the vehicle.” id. ¶ 56. They have done so, on 1 Plaintiff’s telling, as part of a conspiracy “to stage a vehicle collision intended to result in

Plaintiff’s death.” Id. ¶ 55. Plaintiff has, as a result, allegedly sustained physical injuries,

“Cyber Intrusion,” and “Psychological Torture” because of Defendants’ “Threats [and]

surveillance . . . by using sophisticated tricks,” id. ¶ 59, among other harms, see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 62-

65, for which he demands an award of $5 billion, id. ¶ 1.

“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 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 falls into

this category.

Because the complaint’s fanciful and irrational allegations do not amount to an actual

legal claim over which the Court may exercise jurisdiction, and because the complaint fails to 2 identify the defendants, who are sued in their individual capacity, the Court dismisses the

complaint and this civil action without prejudice.

A separate order will issue.

/s/ RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge DATE: May 9, 2025