Mikenas v. Luna

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TARA MIKENAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00958 (UNA) v. ) ) TONY LUNA, JR., ) ) 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.

In disjointed fashion, and not even in complete sentences, plaintiff accuses defendant of

stalking, financial exploitation, making death threats, and in conjunction with others, conducting

illegal surveillance. See Compl. at 1. Plaintiff is “suing for mental harm + torture of [herself]

and [her] children.” Id.

“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

1 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

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 and, therefore, it will be dismissed without prejudice. An Order is issued separately.

/s/ TANYA S. CHUTKAN DATE: April 19, 2023 United States District Judge