Kidd v. District of Columbia

Opinion

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~pURT JAN 1 2 2010 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLiMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts

Patricia Kidd, ) ) Plaintiff, )

v. ) ) Civil Ac~ion No. ,

10 0053 ) !

District of Columbia et ai., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINIO~ i

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se m~tion for a temporary restraining i i

order ("TRO") accompanied by her complaint and applicati01 to proceed informa pauperis. The

Court will grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny thelTRO motion and dismiss the case I I

as frivolous. I

Plaintiff is a resident of the District of Columbia seekfng emergency relief against "the I

D.C. Court Network." TRO Motion at 5 (page number supplied). She seeks a broad order I

enjoining parties ranging from the District of Columbia MaY1r to the United States Supreme i I

COU'l1 from in essence making decisions adverse to her. See i~ at 4-13. Not only is the behavior I I

sought to be restrained too broad to fashion an appropriate or~er, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d), but !

the motion is simply frivolous. i

With regard to the complaint, plaintiff purports to suel for "malpractice," but she names as

defendants high-level District of Columbia officials, judges of this Court and the Superior Court

of the District of Columbia, as well as "Supreme Court for DF Circuit William Rehnquist" and I I

other entities and individuals with no apparent relationship tq plaintiff. The complaint consists i I

of disconnected, incomprehensible statements. A complaint tay be dismissed under 28 U.S.c. I

§ 1915(e)(2) as frivolous when "there is indisputably absent ~ny factual and legal basis for the

asserted wrong," Brandon v. District of Columbia Bd. of parJle, 734 F.2d 56, 59 (D.C. Cir. I !

1984), or when it describes fantastic or delusional scenarios dr contains "fanciful factual I

allegation[s]." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)1; accord Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, I

330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). This complaint qualifies for such trFatment. A separate Order of

dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: January ~, 2010