Mallgren v. United States of America

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ANTHONY BRIAN MALLGREN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Civil Action No. 26-1717 (UNA)

)

)

UNITED STATES, 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).

2

The complaint’s few factual allegations are unintelligible, and to the extent they can be understood, the Court deems them irrational and incredible, rendering the complaint frivolous. 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