Mikenas v. Leo

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TARA MIKENAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00531 (UNA) v. ) ) LEO, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF

No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant

the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case 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 a “complaint plainly

abusive of the judicial process is properly typed malicious,” Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305,

1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

Plaintiff, who is located in the District of Columbia, sues a single defendant––an individual

identified only as “Leo,” who resides in Plymouth, Minnesota. The allegations against the

defendant are mostly incomprehensible. Plaintiff alleges that he and others, including the FBI and

the “mob,” have conspired to cause her myriad harms, including, “gang stalking,” hacking into her phone and social media accounts and using [sic] “cyber controlls” on her, trafficking her, and

stealing her earnings from “movies” and “settlements.” The relief sought is entirely unclear.

This 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 the

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

uncertain 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, 655 F.2d at 1307–08. The instant complaint satisfies this standard. In addition to failing

to state a claim for relief or establish this Court’s jurisdiction, the complaint is deemed frivolous

on its face.

Therefore, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this

memorandum opinion.

Date: April 17, 2023

Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge