Isom v. Joe Biden Administration

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: October 19, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-2854
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TYESHA N. ISOM, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-2854 (UNA) ) JOE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on initial 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).

Plaintiff fancies herself a politician, lobbyist and future candidate for the office of the

President of the United States. Our current President, plaintiff alleges, fails to fulfill his oath of

office. The complaint devolves into a disjointed, nonsensical expression of plaintiff’s thoughts

on immigration, the presence of persons of Haitian and Mexican origin in the United States, and

the billions of dollars the President allegedly stole from plaintiff, among other topics.

“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)). This complaint not only fails to state a plausible

legal claim, but also lacks “an arguable basis either in law or in fact,” Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 325 (1989), rendering it subject to dismissal as frivolous, see Denton v. Hernandez,

504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (permitting dismissal of a complaint as frivolous “when the facts alleged

rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible”); Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528,

536–37 (1974) (“Over the years, this Court has repeatedly held that the federal courts are without

1 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”).

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

DATE: October 19, 2023 JIA M. COBB United States District Judge