Paulk v. United States Government

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: March 20, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-0489
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LORENZ DEREK PAULK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00489 (UNA) v. ) ) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

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 (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The Court

grants the in forma pauperis application and dismisses the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i), 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).

Here, plaintiff has sued the United States and the Central Intelligence Agency for purported

due process violations for which he demands equitable relief and damages. See Compl. at 3–7;

see also Motion to Supplement the Complaint (“Am. Compl.”), ECF No. 16, at 1 (seeking to add

an Equal Protection Claim). Plaintiff’s submissions consist of rambling ruminations and

hypothetical questions, and the allegations are borne from incomprehensible conspiracy theories. See Compl. at 4–7. Plaintiff accuses the United States and the CIA of being a collective “ruthless,

domestic, and foreign terrorist” and “criminal organization.” See id. at 5–6. In furtherance, he

alleges that the CIA “does violence all over the internet for everyone to see,” that “Fox news said

[his] name on live TV while [he] was watching[,]” and “outrageously gestured” to him, that he

has been tortured by the government through “hundreds of videos . . . every day,” and by way of

mind control and surveillance, since 1997 to date, in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,

Florida, Delaware, Maryland, Georgia, California, and Washington D.C. See id. at 4–7; see also

Am. Compl. at 1. The remainder of the complaint is comprised of exhibits (“Compl. Exs.”), ECF

No. 1-2, that are not unexplained, see D.C. LCvR 5.1(e), (g), and relate predominantly to alleged

machinations of “mind control” and “brain mapping,” see generally Compl. Exs.

As here, 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 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. Plaintiff’s complaint, and

his other filings, are patently frivolous, falling squarely into this category. Accordingly, the complaint, ECF No. 1, and this matter, are dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the complaint, ECF No. 16, is denied, because leave to amend

will not be granted when amendment would be futile. See Richardson v. United States, 193 F.3d

545, 548–49 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Plaintiff’s

remaining motions, ECF Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, are all denied as moot. A separate

order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

DATE: March 20, 2025 /s/ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge