Jacobs-Cardenas-Johnson v. First Trinity Lutheran Church

District of Columbia

Jacobs-Cardenas-Johnson v. First Trinity Lutheran Church

587 F. Supp. 2d 112, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94034, 2008 WL 4921273

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedNovember 14, 2008

DocketCivil Action 08 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 587 F. Supp. 2d 112 (Jacobs-Cardenas-Johnson v. First Trinity Lutheran Church) 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

Jacobs-Cardenas-Johnson v. First Trinity Lutheran Church, 587 F. Supp. 2d 112, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94034, 2008 WL 4921273 (D.D.C. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES ROBERTSON, District Judge.

The plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis, but *113 will dismiss the complaint as frivolous and delusional.

Plaintiffs complaint states at the outset that “I am here in Washington, D.C. so that I could receive a Terrorism compliant against the City of Washington as well as receive an appt. before the General of the United States because I am U.S. Blood and Brain Research of the United States Military for the purpose of receiving an appt. to complete a litigation against Nazi in regards to my being allowed to be U.S. Law of U.S. Research. I am very important and my Blood research is Blood to the Pentagon.” (Compl. at 2.) 1 The remainder of the lengthy complaint discusses plaintiffs ancestors and their relationship with the U.S. military, Pentagon, and CIA. The complaint alleges no wrong-doing by any of the named defendants. Further, the relief requested consists of letters to various entities requesting that the addressee ensure the plaintiffs safety, and that she be allowed to re-enter Law school. (Id. at 8.) She also seeks a “Letter to the State and Local Court for publication.” (Id.)

This complaint presents exactly the sort of “fantastic or delusional scenarios” that warrant dismissal. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Accordingly, this complaint will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (requiring dismissal of frivolous complaints).

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

1

. The pages of the complaint are unnumbered.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES ROBERTSON, District Judge.

The plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis, but *113 will dismiss the complaint as frivolous and delusional.

Plaintiffs complaint states at the outset that “I am here in Washington, D.C. so that I could receive a Terrorism compliant against the City of Washington as well as receive an appt. before the General of the United States because I am U.S. Blood and Brain Research of the United States Military for the purpose of receiving an appt. to complete a litigation against Nazi in regards to my being allowed to be U.S. Law of U.S. Research. I am very important and my Blood research is Blood to the Pentagon.” (Compl. at 2.) 1 The remainder of the lengthy complaint discusses plaintiffs ancestors and their relationship with the U.S. military, Pentagon, and CIA. The complaint alleges no wrong-doing by any of the named defendants. Further, the relief requested consists of letters to various entities requesting that the addressee ensure the plaintiffs safety, and that she be allowed to re-enter Law school. (Id. at 8.) She also seeks a “Letter to the State and Local Court for publication.” (Id.)

This complaint presents exactly the sort of “fantastic or delusional scenarios” that warrant dismissal. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Accordingly, this complaint will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (requiring dismissal of frivolous complaints).

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

1

. The pages of the complaint are unnumbered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

587 F. Supp. 2d 112, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94034, 2008 WL 4921273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobs-cardenas-johnson-v-first-trinity-lutheran-church-dcd-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack