Mikenas v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 12, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-0957
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TARA MIKENAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00957 (UNA) v. ) ) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The Court will grant

the application and dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), by which the

Court is required to dismiss a case “at any time” if it determines that the action is frivolous.

“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) (examining cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality,” including where plaintiff

allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain

1 origins.”). Consequently, a Court is obligated to dismiss a complaint as frivolous “when 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).

The instant complaint satisfies this standard. In conclusory and disjointed fashion,

plaintiff accuses the FBI of stealing her property, defaming her character, and committing child

abuse by keeping plaintiff away from her children “for Ilhan Omar/Iranian, Leo, who think they

own [plaintiff].” Compl. at 1. In addition, plaintiff is “suing for human torture, slavery, and

keeping [plaintiff] a secret by telling everyone [she is] retarded so politicians can use [her]

intellectual property.” Id. This complaint is frivolous on its face and, therefore, it will be

dismissed without prejudice.

An Order is issued separately.

/s/ TANYA S. CHUTKAN DATE: April 12, 2023 United States District Judge