Penk v. Trump

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJanuary 30, 2020
DocketCivil Action No. 2019-3745
StatusPublished

This text of Penk v. Trump (Penk v. Trump) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Penk v. Trump, (D.D.C. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clark

PAGE DAVID PENK, ) )

Plaintiff, )

Vv. ) Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-03745 (UNA)

)

DONALD JOHN TRUMP, ) )

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)Q), which allows for dismissal of a plaintiff's complaint which fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or is frivolous or malicious.

“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); see also Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (holding same).

The complaint, in its current form, is incomprehensible. Plaintiff, a resident of Trinidad, Colorado, sues the President of the United States. The complaint contains, for example, rambling ruminations on various wars, weapons, the Wizard of Oz, and the “Treaty of Disney Land.” The causes of action and relief sought are entirely incoherent. A court may dismiss a complaint as

frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,” Denton l 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.

In addition to failing to state a claim for relief, the complaint is deemed frivolous on its face. Consequently, the complaint and this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies

this memorandum opinion.

poy

Date: \[aa}ze United States-District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Denton v. Hernandez
504 U.S. 25 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Salvatore G. Crisafi v. George E. Holland
655 F.2d 1305 (D.C. Circuit, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Penk v. Trump, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penk-v-trump-dcd-2020.