Hedling v. Casa Inc.

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 23, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-4268
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BOREALIS S. HEDLING,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 25 - 4268 (UNA)

CASA INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Borealis Hedling’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. Mx. Hedling commenced this

action against immigration advocacy group CASA, Inc. ECF No. 1. Mx. Hedling requests a

declaration that federal district courts “can immediately disbar attorneys who violate the Principles

of Jus Cogens,” a determination whether “attorneys have a duty of candor to the public in matters

of international criminal law,” an injunction allowing lawsuits to be brought “actio popularis,” that

is, without a personal stake in the case, an injunction “preserv[ing] the right to seek universal

[i]njunctive relief,” and an order making the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights a binding

international instrument to which the United States is a party.” ECF No. 1, at 2. Mx. Hedling has

also filed two motions to expedite. ECF Nos. 4, 6. For the reasons explained below, the court will

grant Mx. Hedling’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss the complaint for failure to

state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and deny the motions to expedite as moot.

A district court “shall dismiss the case any time if the court determines that . . . the

action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Such dismissal is appropriate where “it is patently obvious that [the plaintiff] could not have

prevailed on the facts alleged in [their] complaint.” Evans v. Urbina, No. 09-5412, 2010 WL

1633174, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 2, 2010) (quoting Baker v. Director, U.S. Parole Comm’n, 916 F.2d

725, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Here, it is obvious that the facts alleged in Mx. Hedling’s complaint

fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Mx. Helding claims that as a “Practitioner

of Karma Yoga and Following of the Eight Fold Path,” they face “persecution” because the “US

Court system [is] systematically incapable of accommodating acceptance of the [Universal

Declaration of Human Rights’] commitments to act compassionately.” ECF No. 1, at 2-3. They

reference petitions before the Supreme Court of India, id. at 2, the Supreme Court of the United

Kingdom, id., and the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, id. at 3. But Mx. Hedling

does not explain how their allegations give rise to a claim against CASA. Indeed, they mention

CASA, the sole named Defendant, in only one line of the complaint. Id. at 3 (appearing to argue

that CASA’s duty as the respondent in a United States Supreme Court case violated “their duty of

candor to the Tribunal” because the case “should have been reheard”). Mx. Hedling also appears

to ask this court to order relief in violation of well-established constitutional limits, such as by

abolishing Article III standing and permitting lawsuits to be brought “actio popularis,” providing

an advisory opinion about a lawyer’s obligations in matters of “international criminal law,” and

ignoring the the Treaty Clause to make the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights a binding

international instrument to which the United States is a party.” ECF No. 1, at 2.

The court will accordingly grant Mx. Hedling’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF

No. 2, and dismiss their complaint, ECF No. 1, and the case with prejudice for failure to state a

claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court will also deny Mx. Hedling’s motions to

expedite, ECF Nos. 4, 6, as moot. A contemporaneous order will issue.

2 LOREN L. ALIKHAN United States District Judge Date: February 23, 2026