Isom v. Blinken

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 8, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-2852
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TYESHA ISOM, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-02852 (UNA) v. ) ) ANTHONY BLINKEN, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its review of Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No. 1,

and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the in

forma pauperis application and dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

“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 is 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 it “postulat[es] events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind,”

Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981). A court can dismiss a frivolous

complaint. Id.

Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous. Plaintiff, a resident of Dallas, Texas, sues current and

former United States Secretaries of State. She derides that they failed to attend a meeting she

scheduled to discuss, “all civil rights of law enforcement duties that may be an issue for the

courts, and any other conflicts relating to foreign affairs that serve purpose for myself, as the

next U.S. President, the talks were planning on the countries business matters for the U.S. 1 Defense Department, only fired to protect U.S. citizens.” ECF 1 at 5. The rest of the Complaint

consists of Plaintiff’s personal ruminations, hypothetical questions, conspiracy theories, and

purported recommendations regarding the operation of the United States government. The

allegations oscillate through disparate topics, including, but not limited to: “AIDS as a chemical

warfare,” “Moors . . . traveling into the U.S. looking for money and a new life under someone

else[’s] name living or dead,” “Black American women to go to war against China,” and

“AWOL, desertion during war; failure to report to duty.” ECF 1 at 5-7. Plaintiff demands “100

mill$ reclaimed only in [her] name, as the Haitian spies hide and the Puerto Rican let them lie.”

Id.

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6). Even if her allegations made any sense—they do not—there is no cause of action for

the failure of government officials to attend a meeting organized by a Plaintiff. Moreover,

Plaintiff’s allegations are incomprehensible and do not support any other possible cause of

action.

Consequently, the Complaint and this case are dismissed without prejudice. A separate

Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: November 8, 2023 /s/_________________________ ANA C. REYES United States District Judge