Igorevich v. New York State Government

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 13, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2586
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SIVOKONEV PAVEL IGOREVICH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02586 (UNA) v. ) ) NEW YORK ) STATE GOVERNMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint

(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The

Court grants the in forma pauperis Application, and for the reasons discussed below, dismisses

this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), by which the Court is required to dismiss an

action at any time if it determines that it is frivolous.

“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).

Plaintiff, a resident of New York, sues the United States and the “New York State

Government.” See Compl. at 1, 5–6. He also indicates that, “[a]dditionally, numerous private

corporations and entities are named as Defendants (or alternatively as co-conspirators acting in

concert with government actors) for their role in facilitating or participating in unlawful conduct.” Id. at 7. Plaintiff’s sprawling Complaint, totaling 119 pages, is predicated on an alleged “multi-

faceted conspiracy that has deprived him of fundamental rights secured by the U.S. Constitution,

federal and state law, and international law.” See id. at 5. Plaintiff believes that he is a target and

victim of a “deeply-entrenched, multi-sectoral network,” by which Defendants have used

“experimental, nonconsensual . . . implanted technology,” including “nanomedicine, deep brain

stimulation, and experimental brain-organ-machine interfacing,” to treat him as an “unclassified

being.” See id. at 13. As a result, Plaintiff contends that he has suffered “psychological and

physical torture, and attempted murder,” and that Defendants’ “neurotechnological procedures”

have resulted in “suspicious deaths of family members and animals, suggesting a broader pattern

of intimidation and harm designed to exert control and suppress dissent.” See id. at 14. He

demands equitable relief and damages. See id. at 11, 106–08.

As here, 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 satisfies this standard. Accordingly, the Complaint and this case are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff’s other

pending Motions, ECF Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, are all denied as moot. A separate Order accompanies

this Memorandum Opinion.

TREVOR N. McFADDEN Date: November 13, 2025 United States District Judge