Perales v. U.S. Secret Service

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 10, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-3008
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AZAEL DYTHIAN PERALES,

Plaintiff, Case No. 25-cv-3008 (JMC)

v.

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Azael Dythian Perales, proceeding pro se, filed the instant suit against the United

States Secret Service and the National Security Agency. 1 He alleges that these government

agencies violated a host of federal criminal statutes in their dealings with him. For the reasons

described below, the Court DISMISSES his complaint and this action sua sponte.

It is well-settled that “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,

wholly insubstantial, [or] obviously frivolous.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974).

A complaint will be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) when it is

“‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Best v. Kelly,

39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6 (1989)).

Claims are patently insubstantial if they are “essentially fictitious,” for example, advancing

1 Unless otherwise indicated, the formatting of quoted materials has been modified throughout this opinion, for example, by omitting internal quotation marks and citations, and by incorporating emphases, changes to capitalization, and other bracketed alterations therein. All pincites to documents filed on the docket are to the automatically generated ECF Page ID number that appears at the top of each page.

1 “bizarre conspiracy theories,” “fantastic government manipulations of [one’s] will or mind,” or

some type of “supernatural intervention.” Id. In such cases, a district court may dismiss the case

sua sponte. See Lewis v. Bayh, 577 F. Supp. 2d 47, 54 (D.D.C. 2008).

Putting aside the fact that criminal statutes generally do not confer any private right of

action, Perales’ allegations fall squarely in the “fanciful” category. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; see

also Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307–08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“A court may dismiss as

frivolous complaints . . . postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind.”). Among

other allegations, he claims that Defendants “continue[] to emit powerful and dangerous radio

signals to [his] brain while [he is] semi-conscious or asleep,” as well as that they “have somehow

[been] able to read [his] every thought while [he is] conscious by way of a computer which sends

a live streaming feed of [his] thoughts.” ECF 1 at 2. His complaint and subsequent filings are

littered with offensive slurs and other coarse language that the Court will not recount here; but

suffice it to say that these allegations similarly do not present a substantial legal question for this

Court to resolve. Accordingly, upon sua sponte review, this action is dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

JIA M. COBB U.S. District Court Judge DATE: February 10, 2026