Marino v. Bessent

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 21, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-3884
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) KENA LAJUAN MARINO ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 25-cv-03884 (APM) ) SCOTT BESSENT, SECRETARY, ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ) OF THE TREASURY, ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Kena LaJuan Marino, proceeding pro se, brings false arrest and/or malicious

prosecution claims against Defendant Scott Bessent, Secretary of the United States Department of

the Treasury. Compl., ECF No. 1 [hereinafter Compl.], at 6. Because Plaintiff fails to raise a

substantial federal question and the claims are patently frivolous, the court sua sponte dismisses

the 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).

The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and finds it difficult to follow. The Complaint

proceeds in a stream-of-consciousness manner and alleges, among other things, “‘systemic’

misconduct,” “national security risks,” “C-19 conspiracies/discriminations,” “inherita[n]ces

interferences,” “redistrictings,” “Bills, briberies Acts,” “Insurance Companies fraudulences,

Privatizations.” Compl. 1. Plaintiff also alludes to a conspiracy to promote “Powers” and

“opportunistic accomplishments” at the “expense of innocent lives and liv[e]lihoods.” Id. at 2.

The Complaint otherwise lacks details sufficient to illuminate a claim. Plaintiff seeks

compensatory damages in the amount of $9.25 trillion and “Qualified immunities. Restoration of

birthrights sovereignties, generational wealth transfers.” Id. at 1.

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 “patently insubstantial” and presents “no federal

question suitable for decision.” Best, 39 F.3d at 330 (citations 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: November 21, 2025 Amit P. Mehta United States District Judge