Jones v. Biden

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 28, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-3368
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JUIANNE JONES,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 23-3368 (TSC)

DONALD J. TRUMP,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Julianne Jones, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil action

in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, against Defendant, then President Joseph R.

Biden, now President Donald J. Trump in his official capacity as successor to President Biden.

Compl., Jones v. Biden, No. 2023-CAB-004079 (D.C. Super. Ct. July 10, 2023). 1 Defendant

removed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) on November 9, 2023. Notice of Removal,

ECF No. 1. Defendant has moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process. ECF No. 11.

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the court will not dismiss

for insufficient service of process. Instead, the court will sua sponte dismiss the action as frivolous

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, courts may authorize plaintiffs to proceed in forma pauperis

if they are unable to pay court fees. D.C. Superior Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in

1 Defendant attached a copy of the Superior Court’s docket sheet to the Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1). The Court takes judicial notice of publicly available Superior Court records, see Covad Commc’ns Co. v. Bell Atl. Corp., 407 F.3d 1220, 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2005), and has reviewed the full docket online.

Page 1 of 3 forma pauperis without prepayment of costs, Jones v. Biden, No. 2023-CAB-004079 (D.C. Super.

Ct. July 10, 2023), which carries over to this court after removal, Weekes v. U.S. Postal Serv., No.

13-cv-1593, 2014 WL 1338608, at *1 n.1 (D.D.C. Apr. 4, 2014). Under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(c), the court must order the U.S. Marshals to effectuate service for individuals

proceeding in forma pauperis. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). A plaintiff “generally should not be

penalized for court officers’ failure or mistake in properly effecting service.” Gonzalez v. Holder,

763 F. Supp. 2d 145, 148 (D.D.C. 2011) (collecting cases). Therefore, the court will not dismiss

for insufficient process.

Dismissal is nonetheless warranted because Plaintiff’s action is frivolous. Plaintiff’s

Complaint states:

President Biden is not doing his job which America pays him money. He is not following his advisors advice . . . and acts like he doesn’t have any formal education. Our country is suffering and he start acting like a President by providing pizza in the presidents park every day from 12p–4p. President Biden needs to provide[] pizza/soda every day [from] 12p–4p to show that he is trying [to] fix America, needs to give all citizens access to the food stamp ebt card, provide housing for the homeless, monthly stimulus, etc.

Compl. at 1, ECF No. 7. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, filed two days later, contains no factual

allegations, but demands a “$350,000 consulting fee for finding a solution on how to feed America

during lunch from 12p–4p daily.” Am. Compl., ECF No. 1-1.

The federal in forma pauperis statute “is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have

meaningful access to the federal courts.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (citation

omitted). To “discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless

lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit and

because of the threat of sanctions for bringing vexatious suits under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 11[,]” id. at 327, however, courts “shall dismiss . . . frivolous or malicious” actions filed

Page 2 of 3 by plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint that “lacks

an arguable basis either in law or in fact” is frivolous. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 326. Although pro se

litigants are held to less stringent standards, the court concludes Plaintiff’s claim is frivolous.

Plaintiff demands $350,000 for a vague and illogical list of policy ideas, including that the

President personally provide pizza and soda to the public for four hours every day. Compl. at 1.

The claim rests on “irrational or wholly incredible” factual allegations and “an indisputably

meritless legal theory.” Jordan v. Quander, 882 F. Supp. 2d 88, 97 (D.D. C. 2012). Unprompted,

fanciful policy ideas do not give rise to a legal claim and claims “describing fantastic or delusional

scenarios fall into the frivolous category.” Id.; see, e.g., Brown v. Off. of Cong., Legis. & Pub.

Affairs, 587 F. Supp. 2d 131, 131 (D.D.C. 1009) (demand for “bill or formal resolution” shutting

down “practices of the occult” “presents precisely the sort of ‘fantastical or delusional scenarios’

that warrant dismissal” (citation omitted)); Rattler v. Sec’y of Health and Hum. Servs., 736 F.

Supp. 2d 1, 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (dismissing claim for “unlimited sum of money, supernatural

powers[,], and the right to be awarded benefits” as frivolous). Because it is “patently obvious”

that Plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts alleged in her complaint, sua sponte dismissal is

appropriate. Baker v. Dir., U.S. Parole Comm'n, 916 F.2d 725, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1990). An Order

shall issue separately.

Date: May 28, 2025

Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3