Jacobs v. Subsequent Living Girls and Families

District of Columbia

Jacobs v. Subsequent Living Girls and Families

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided July 9, 2020·No. Civil Action No. 2020-1818·Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FILED

JUL - 9 2020

BRANDON MICHAEL JACOBS, )

) Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Plaintiff, ) Court for the District of Columbia )

v. ) Civil Action No. 20-1818 (UNA)

)

SUBSEQUENT LIVING GIRLS ) AND FAMILIES, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint.

Plaintiff allegedly maintains a list of girls in a “Subsequent Living contract.” Compl. at 1. He “has biometric suspension with a compelling need under satellite military custody to sleep with the girls that are stated in [his] subsequent living contract.” Id. Plaintiff “has a compelling need to reproduce with these girls,” id., and their “children must be made with artificial insemination[,]” id. at 2. The Court’s role “is to pull informative quarantines titled Subsequent Living, Superficial Exile, Excelsior Exile, and Biometrics for this case from the informative quarantine section in National Archives, Washington, DC.” Id. at 1.

“[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see Brandon v. District of Columbia Bd. of Parole, 734 F.2d 56, 59 (D.C. Cir. 1984). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in fact when “the facts alleged are clearly baseless, a

category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Based on its review of the instant complaint and the allegations set forth therein, the Court deems the instant complaint subject to dismissal as frivolous.

The Court will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: July 7, 2020 /s/ JAMES E. BOASBERG

United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FILED

JUL - 9 2020

BRANDON MICHAEL JACOBS, )

) Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Plaintiff, ) Court for the District of Columbia )

v. ) Civil Action No. 20-1818 (UNA)

)

SUBSEQUENT LIVING GIRLS ) AND FAMILIES, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint.

Plaintiff allegedly maintains a list of girls in a “Subsequent Living contract.” Compl. at 1. He “has biometric suspension with a compelling need under satellite military custody to sleep with the girls that are stated in [his] subsequent living contract.” Id. Plaintiff “has a compelling need to reproduce with these girls,” id., and their “children must be made with artificial insemination[,]” id. at 2. The Court’s role “is to pull informative quarantines titled Subsequent Living, Superficial Exile, Excelsior Exile, and Biometrics for this case from the informative quarantine section in National Archives, Washington, DC.” Id. at 1.

“[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see Brandon v. District of Columbia Bd. of Parole, 734 F.2d 56, 59 (D.C. Cir. 1984). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in fact when “the facts alleged are clearly baseless, a

category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Based on its review of the instant complaint and the allegations set forth therein, the Court deems the instant complaint subject to dismissal as frivolous.

The Court will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: July 7, 2020 /s/ JAMES E. BOASBERG

United States District Judge

Jacobs v. Subsequent Living Girls and Families, (D.D.C. 2020).

Pincite

Jacobs v. Subsequent Living Girls and Families (Jacobs v. Subsequent Living Girls and Families) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related