Mallgren v. New York State

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJune 1, 2026
DocketCivil Action No. 2026-1535
StatusPublished

This text of Mallgren v. New York State (Mallgren v. New York State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mallgren v. New York State, (D.D.C. 2026).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ANTHONY BRIAN MALLGREN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 26-1535 (UNA) ) ) NEW YORK STATE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis,

ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The Court grants the application and dismisses the

complaint.

“A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A complaint that lacks “an arguable basis either in

law or in fact” is frivolous, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and the Court cannot

exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a frivolous complaint, Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528,

536-37 (1974) (“Over the years, this Court has repeatedly held that the federal 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.’”) (quoting Newburyport Water Co. v.

Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904)); Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir.

2009). Consequently, the Court is obligated to dismiss a complaint as frivolous when, as here,

“the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,” Denton v. Hernandez,

504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992), or “postulat[e] events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind,” Crisafi

v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

1 The complaint’s few factual allegations are unintelligible, and to the extent they can be

understood, the Court deems them irrational and incredible. And the Court cannot exercise

jurisdiction of a frivolous complaint. An Order will be issued separately.

DATE: June 1, 2026 /s/ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport
193 U.S. 561 (Supreme Court, 1904)
Hagans v. Lavine
415 U.S. 528 (Supreme Court, 1974)
Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Denton v. Hernandez
504 U.S. 25 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Tooley v. Napolitano
556 F.3d 836 (D.C. Circuit, 2009)
Salvatore G. Crisafi v. George E. Holland
655 F.2d 1305 (D.C. Circuit, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mallgren v. New York State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mallgren-v-new-york-state-dcd-2026.