Larue v. Ratcliffe

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: October 20, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-1647
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

REGINA COCO LARUE,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 25-cv-1647

JOHN RATCLIFFE, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Regina Coco LaRue, proceeding pro se, alleges a far-reaching “conspiracy

between government officials, private actors, occult networks,” and a private family to “extract

and exploit” Plaintiff’s “divine gifts” using “energy weapons, electromagnetic frequency

manipulation, implanted devices, and psychic warfare techniques,” as well as “witchcraft, voodoo,

black magic, curses aimed at inducing illness, and other forms of spiritual violence.” Compl.

¶¶ 21, 25, 30, 59, ECF No. 1. Defendants now move to dismiss. Because the court lacks subject-

matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s “patently insubstantial” claims, see Tooley v. Napolitano, 586

F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009), the court will GRANT all pending Motions to Dismiss, ECF

Nos. 24, 25, 41, 42, 49; DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 31; and dismiss

the case in its entirety.1

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff was born a “gifted” child, “endowed with innate

spiritual power, creativity, and healing abilities that drew the attention of U.S. intelligence and

1 It is immaterial that Defendant Grand Lodge of Freemasonry has failed to appear and file a Motion to Dismiss. The court “must dismiss” an action sua sponte if it “determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (“Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be forfeited or waived . . .”).

Page 1 of 4 secret societies alike.” Compl. ¶¶ 23–24. As a result of her gifts, “occult networks embedded

within federal agencies”—specifically, the Freemasons and Eastern Stars—“conspired with

members of [a private] family and corrupt government officials” to drain Plaintiff’s “spiritual

battery” and “steal” her powers. Id. ¶¶ 27–30. The conspiracy began when Plaintiff “was

enrolled,” at birth, “in a classified CIA human experimentation program . . . designed to

manipulate [her] mind, spirit, and bioenergetic field.” Id. ¶ 23. And it has continued for “five and

a half decades.” Id. ¶ 71.

Plaintiff further alleges that this conspiracy has involved “not only magical attacks, but

[also] physical surveillance and digital exploitation.” Compl. ¶¶ 27, 36. Specifically, federal

agents bribed the maintenance and leasing staff at Plaintiff’s apartment building, installed hidden

cameras in Plaintiff’s apartment, and streamed her private moments on “adult platforms such as

OnlyFans.” Id. ¶¶ 37–42. To cover up these alleged abuses, “Defendants engaged in a coordinated

campaign of suppression,” including by refusing to produce records in response to letters sent to

“the FBI, CIA, IRS, Internal Affairs, Montgomery County, and the Arlington Police Department.”

Id. ¶¶ 61–62, 83. Plaintiff seeks $55 billion in damages to reflect “the global scale of the spiritual

warfare waged against her, and the incalculable value of her stolen destiny.” Id. ¶ 72.

Although “pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than other complaints,

even a pro se plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject-matter

jurisdiction.” Carmichael v. Pompeo, 486 F. Supp. 3d 360, 366 (D.D.C. 2020) (quoting Curran

v. Holder, 626 F. Supp. 2d 30, 32 (D.D.C. 2009)). The court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over

any claim that is “patently insubstantial,” such that it “present[s] no federal question suitable for

decision.” Tooley, 586 F.3d at 1010 (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994));

see also Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536 (1974) (“Over the years this Court has repeatedly

Page 2 of 4 held that the federal courts are without power to entertain claims . . . if they are . . . wholly

insubstantial . . . . (cleaned up)). Claims qualify as “patently insubstantial” if they rely on

“any bizarre conspiracy theories, any fantastic government manipulations of [a plaintiff’s]

will or mind,” or “any sort of supernatural intervention.” Best, 39 F.3d at 330.

Plaintiff relies on all three. She alleges “a broad conspiracy” involving “bribed government

officials, law enforcement, judges, private technology actors,” “esoteric organizations,” and a

private family. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 26, 129. This conspiracy allegedly entails “government

manipulations of [Plaintiff’s] mind.” Best, 39 F.3d at 330; see, e.g., Compl. ¶ 23 (“Without the

consent of her parents, [Plaintiff] was enrolled in a classified CIA human experimentation program

. . . designed to manipulate [her] mind, spirit, and bioenergetic field.”). And it allegedly involves

“supernatural intervention,” Best, 39 F.3d at 330, in the form of “witchcraft, voodoo, black magic,”

and the like. Compl. ¶ 59. Because Plaintiff’s claims are so fanciful as to be “essentially

fictitious,” Hagans, 415 U.S. at 537, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over them.

To the extent that Plaintiff’s Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) claim can be separated

from her “bizarre conspiracy theories,” Best, 39 F.3d at 330, that claim would still require

dismissal. To state a FOIA claim, a plaintiff must identify the specific FOIA requests at issue in

a manner detailed enough to provide the defendants with fair notice of the claims against them.

Risenhoover v. Stanfield, 767 F. App’x 12, 13 (D.C. Cir. 2019). Here, Plaintiff alleges only that

she “submitted multiple FOIA requests to the CIA, FBI, and IRS over a period of several years”

and that these requests were “ignored altogether.” Compl. ¶¶ 104, 107. She has not specified the

dates that these requests were filed nor provided any other information that could help Defendants

locate her alleged requests. Plaintiff’s vague allegations therefore fail to state a FOIA claim. See

Sherven v. CIA, No. 23-cv-3214, 2024 WL 519809 (D.D.C. Jan. 30, 2024). Accordingly, the court

Page 3 of 4 will GRANT all pending Motions to Dismiss and dismiss the case in its entirety. A separate order

will follow.

Date: October 20, 2025

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

Page 4 of 4