Julius v. Check

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: September 26, 2012
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2012-1601
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED SEP 2 6zon. . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk. U.S. District & Bankruptcy CDar1s for the Dlstr~t of Columbia FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) Tyrone Julius, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 12 1601 ) Dr. Cheek, ) ) Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs prose complaint and

application for leave to proceed informapauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is

required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, is frivolous.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, has submitted a wholly incomprehensible

complaint consisting of scribble. The only clear thing in the complaint is plaintiffs demand for

$199,999,999.00. Plaintiffs outlandish and baseless demand warrants dismissal ofthe

complaint under§ 1915(e)(2) as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989);

Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, the complaint is so "patently

insubstantial" as to deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Tooley v. Napolitano, 586

F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009); see Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F. Supp. 2d 177, 178 (D.D.C.

2011) ("A district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when the complaint 'is patently

(N) insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for decision."') (quoting Tooley, 586 F.3d at

1009). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

z;; G L ~HL¥J( United States District Judge Date: September W , 2012