Jordan v. Tucson Police Department

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JAMES JORDAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-0025 (UNA) ) TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, ) ) Defendant )

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, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The Court will grant

the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), by which the Court must dismiss a case “at any time” if it determines

that the action is frivolous.

According to plaintiff, he is subjected to a “psychological warfare system,” and the FBI

“is using cyber attacks” and “fraud” whenever plaintiff attempted to schedule appointments with

medical specialists. Compl., Ex. (ECF No. 1-1) at 10 (page numbers designated by CM/ECF).

Plaintiff attributes to defendant various malfunctions of his vehicle, to include lights “blink[ing]

from the inside” and an engine that “would stall.” Id. at 11-12. For these and other alleged

“illegal acts by Tucson Police Plaintiff seeks judgment of 10 million” dollars. Id. at 12.

“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). On review

1 of the complaint, the Court concludes that its factual allegations are incoherent, irrational or

wholly incredible, rendering the complaint subject to dismissal as frivolous, see Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the

facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible[.]”), 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”).

A separate order will issue.

DATE: January 19, 2023 /s/ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge