In re New York ex rel. Unger

District of Columbia

In re New York ex rel. Unger

990 F. Supp. 2d 6, 2013 WL 5787097, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154032

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedOctober 28, 2013

DocketMisc. No. 13-1205 (JEB)

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 990 F. Supp. 2d 6 (In re New York ex rel. Unger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re New York ex rel. Unger, 990 F. Supp. 2d 6, 2013 WL 5787097, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154032 (D.D.C. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge

Pro se Plaintiff Glenn Richard Unger has filed a lengthy pleading that the Court cannot decipher. Plaintiff refers to himself as “glenn richard of the Holy temple in Christ Jesus appearing specially at superior jurisdiction (non-corporate),” and he labels his pleading a “Confession of judgment in lieu of complaint” and an “Accelerated entry of judgment and preservation of judicial records.” Pleading at 1. He asks “for entry by the clerk of court of a confessed judgment on the books of the highest court to purge an ongoing state of insurrection and judicial anarchy directed against the supreme court for the fourth judicial district of New York____” Id. at 2.

“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, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, plainly unsubstantial, or no longer open to discussion.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974) (citations and internal quotations omitted); see also Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C.Cir.1994) (may dismiss claims that are “essentially fictitious” — for example, where they suggest “bizarre conspiracy theories ... [or] fantastic government manipulations of their will or mind”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). This is precisely what the Complaint alleges here.

The Court is mindful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Having reviewed Plaintiffs submission, the Court concludes that few factual contentions are identifiable and those that are contain no merit on their face. For this reason, the case is frivolous and must be dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge

Pro se Plaintiff Glenn Richard Unger has filed a lengthy pleading that the Court cannot decipher. Plaintiff refers to himself as “glenn richard of the Holy temple in Christ Jesus appearing specially at superior jurisdiction (non-corporate),” and he labels his pleading a “Confession of judgment in lieu of complaint” and an “Accelerated entry of judgment and preservation of judicial records.” Pleading at 1. He asks “for entry by the clerk of court of a confessed judgment on the books of the highest court to purge an ongoing state of insurrection and judicial anarchy directed against the supreme court for the fourth judicial district of New York____” Id. at 2.

“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, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, plainly unsubstantial, or no longer open to discussion.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974) (citations and internal quotations omitted); see also Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C.Cir.1994) (may dismiss claims that are “essentially fictitious” — for example, where they suggest “bizarre conspiracy theories ... [or] fantastic government manipulations of their will or mind”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). This is precisely what the Complaint alleges here.

The Court is mindful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Having reviewed Plaintiffs submission, the Court concludes that few factual contentions are identifiable and those that are contain no merit on their face. For this reason, the case is frivolous and must be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

990 F. Supp. 2d 6, 2013 WL 5787097, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-new-york-ex-rel-unger-dcd-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack