McAfee v. Biden, Jr.

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedOctober 1, 2024
DocketCivil Action No. 2024-2334
StatusPublished

This text of McAfee v. Biden, Jr. (McAfee v. Biden, Jr.) 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
McAfee v. Biden, Jr., (D.D.C. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ALEXANDER JUSTIN MCAFEE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 24-02334 (UNA) ) ) JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN, JR. et al., ) ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on Plaintiff’s complaint against President

Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken for breach of

contract, ECF No. 1, and Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The

Court will grant the application and dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

(requiring immediate dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint is frivolous).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached a “written” contract made on April 19, 2024, to

“provide documented evidence that I, My Self have knowing and willingly with full understanding

and disclosure have entered into the Offer/Contract that was presented by an instrumentality of the

United States, namely the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania[.]” ECF No. 1 at 4. The breach

occurred when “Defendants . . . failed to Answer in the prescribed time as set forth into the

Counter-Offer, a.k.a Conditional Acceptance Upon Proof of Claim.” Id. Plaintiff posits that

Defendants have acquiesced apparently in his offer for them “to step down from any and all offices

held public and private, and never run for public or private office again.” Id. A complaint supported, as here, by allegations lacking “an arguable basis either in law or

in fact” may be dismissed as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The term

frivolous “embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual

allegation.” Id. Consequently, this case will be dismissed by separate order.

_________/s/_____________ JIA M. COBB Date: September 25, 2024 United States District Judge

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

Related

Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
McAfee v. Biden, Jr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcafee-v-biden-jr-dcd-2024.