Patel v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: March 15, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-0308
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RAJ K. PATEL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 24-00308 (UNA) ) ) THE UNITED STATES et al, ) ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF

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

application and dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff, a resident of Indianapolis, Indiana, brings this suit against the United States,

President Joe Biden, United States Secretary of State, and the United States Chief of Protocol,

Compl. Caption, and demands “the sum of $40,000,000[,]” Compl. ¶ 4. Plaintiff alleges: “This

is enforcement of the peace treaty of the Glorious Revolution and our National Character.” Id. ¶

3. He asserts that “[m]any communities have bowing and curtesy . . . rituals to their parents and

elders” and that “said greetings are disrespectful to protocol of the United States Constitution.”

Id. ¶¶ 1-2. Plaintiff further alleges that “[l]awyers and state figures should not follow” such

rituals and “[l]awful student government presidents . . . are exempt but may receive the

greetings.” Id. ¶ 2. In “Claim 1 (Due Process)” and “Claim 2 (Invasion of Federal Privacy),” he

claims that Defendants “are unconstitutionally allowing these anti-statist religious practices to

come to an end” and “[d]ue process requires that the Defendants build cultural capacity of bringing such greeting practices to an end.” Id. ¶¶ 5-6. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that the greeting

“practices have caused [him] psychological pain and social burden and comfort.” Id. ¶ 7.

Complaints, as here, that are supported wholly 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. The Court will, accordingly, dismiss the instant complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), which requires immediate dismissal of a frivolous

action.

A separate order will issue.

_________/s/_____________ RANDOLPH D. MOSS Date: March 15, 2024 United States District Judge