Khoshmood v. Khoshmood

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: August 30, 2012
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2012-1437
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

AUG 30 2012 c%'.'.’§l§ l‘.,'?ih‘§'%‘»’s‘§l,l §?'é'§'lll’§§¥a Mohsen Khoshmood, ) Plaintiff, § v. § civil A¢uon No. /,;>~/z/§ 7 Mohsen M. Khoshmood, § Defendant. l MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19l5(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(i).

Given the complaint’s caption, plaintiff appears to be suing himself.l The "Complaint" consists of an "Affldavit of Equitable lnterest" that is wholly incomprehensible and unexplained attachments. Complaints that lack "an arguable basis in law and fact" are subject to dismissal as frivolous. Brcmdon v. Distrz`ct of Columbia Ba’. of Parole, 734 F.Zd 56, 59 (D.C. Cir. 1984); see Crisa/”z v. Hollana’, 655 F.Zd 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. l98l) ("A court may dismiss as frivolous

complaints reciting bare legal conclusions with no suggestion of supporting facts, or postulating

According to the Clerk, plaintiff and other individuals similarly situated have repeatedly appeared in the Clerk’s Office and demanded that their deficient complaints be filed. As it did with at least two other such submissions, the Court will allow this action to be filed to resolve this matter once and for all. See Perez v. Perez, Civ. No. 12-1207 (UNA) (D.D.C. July, 23, 2012); Thornas v. Thomas, Civ. No. 12-12()8 (UNA) (D.D.C. July 23, 2012).

l

»»~.-¢¢~.»~»»u~»~i.»-.»,v»¢.»,»..,l... w - t ..» t .,»,,.W .. __ ,_. ..,c. … ,

events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind."). The instant complaint satisfies the

foregoing standard. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

United States District Judge {

Date:August 21 ,2012