Liccione v. Vr Systems Inc.

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: October 3, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-1028
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) JOHN WILLIAM LICCIONE, ) United States of America ex rel., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 25-cv-01028 (APM) ) VR SYSTEMS INC., et al. ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff John William Liccione, proceeding pro se, brings several claims against

Defendants VR Systems, Inc. and its CEO, as well as numerous federal, state, local, and foreign

government officials. Am. Compl., ECF No. 11 [hereinafter Am. Compl.], ¶¶ 8–23. Because

Plaintiff fails to raise a substantial federal question and his claims are patently frivolous, the court

sua sponte dismisses the Amended Complaint and this action.

“[F]ederal 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” or “obviously

frivolous.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974) (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted); see also Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“A complaint may

be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds when it ‘is patently insubstantial, presenting no federal

question suitable for decision.’” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d

328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994))). Claims are insubstantial and frivolous if they are “essentially

fictitious” because they advance, for example, “bizarre conspiracy theories.” Best, 39 F.3d at 330 (internal quotation marks omitted). In such cases, a district court may dismiss the case sua sponte.

See Lewis v. Bayh, 577 F. Supp. 2d 47, 54 (D.D.C. 2008).

Here, Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy beginning when falsified ballot records tainted multiple

elections in which he ran as a candidate. Am. Compl ¶¶ 59, 81. Despite repeated attempts to get

local, state, and federal officials to investigate, Plaintiff received no response. Id. ¶¶ 73–80, 85,

99. Plaintiff also filed election-fraud lawsuits, but several federal-government Defendants

allegedly bribed a potential witness into silence by offering him a job within the Department of

Justice’s Civil Rights Division. Id. ¶ 94. When Plaintiff spoke out against both the fraudulent

election activity and various political officials more broadly, he received anonymous emails telling

him that he may be detained, deported, or “[p]erhaps worse” by the new administration and that

“[his] name is on The List.” Id. ¶¶ 63, 115. Plaintiff also received intelligence “from sources

referred to herein collectively as ‘Radio Putin’ indicating that Putin and Trump are conspiring” to

have a terrorist assassinate him. Id. ¶ 122. The same intelligence told Plaintiff that the National

Security Administration had hacked his devices and that Russian officials had obtained some of

the files. Id. ¶ 123. The President was then allegedly caught on a hot microphone mentioning

Plaintiff by name, saying that he sees Plaintiff “getting a funeral.” Id. ¶ 125. Ultimately, Plaintiff

alleges that Defendants violated a host of federal laws as they conspired to conceal the falsified

ballot records and then silence Plaintiff through retaliation. Id. ¶ 129. Plaintiff seeks compensatory

damages of over $50 million and punitive damages of over $200 million, along with other statutory

damages and injunctive relief. Id. at pp. 73–75.

The court is mindful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent

standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner,

404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). But Plaintiff’s claim is clearly fantastic, delusional, and “essentially

2 fictitious.” Best, 39 F.3d at 330 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the court

dismisses the Complaint and this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A separate final, appealable order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Dated: October 3, 2025 Amit P. Mehta United States District Judge