James v. Trump

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 20, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-1789
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TERENCE ROGER JAMES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-01789 (UNA) ) ) DONALD TRUMP, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), pro se complaint (ECF No. 1), and motion to expedite

trial (ECF No. 3). The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint under 28

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous, and deny the motion to expedite trial.

“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 that lacks “an arguable basis

either in law or in fact” is frivolous, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and the Court

cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a frivolous complaint, Hagans v. Lavine, 415

U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (“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.’”) (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,” including where plaintiff

allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain 1 origins.”). Consequently, a Court is obligated to dismiss a complaint as 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 “postulat[e] events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind,”

Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

The instant complaint satisfies this standard and, therefore, it will be dismissed without

prejudice. Plaintiff purports to sue the current President of the United States, Kash Patel, John

Ratcliffe, Pete Hegseth, Elon Musk and Kamala Harris, see Compl. at 1, for alleged violations of

rights protected under the First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution, see id. at 3. In addition, plaintiff alleges that “[t]he Tesla Corporation owe[s

him] 46.2 billion dollars,” id. at 4, and that the defendants “violated [his] constitutional right to

cover up a civil matter,” id. Plaintiff asks the Court “to recover money owed and compensation

for pain and suffering.” Id. at 5.

Taken together, these meager factual allegations not only fail to state a plausible claim

for relief, but also are irrational and incredible. The complaint’s patent insubstantiality warrants

dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. A separate order will issue.

/s/ AMIT P. MEHTA United States District Judge DATE: June 20, 2025