Rex v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 20, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-2605
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BENJAMIN J. REX, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02605 v. ) ) FEDERAL BUREAU ) OF INVESTIGATION, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se complaint

(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The

Court grants the in forma pauperis application and, for the reasons discussed below, dismisses this

case without prejudice.

At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff only provided a partial address, see Compl. at

1, in contravention of D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1), see Mail Returned Undeliverable, ECF No.

4. The allegations themselves fare no better. “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 Plaintiff’s Complaint falls squarely into this category.

Here, Plaintiff sues the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), alleging that, for about

three years, the agency has conspired against him by orchestrating a misinformation campaign,

and by subjecting him extortion, menace, harassment, defamation, provocation, mental abuse,

intentional tort, impersonation, negligence, coercion, false imprisonment, sexual abuse, misuse of excessive force, falsification of evidence, intimidation, infringement, brutality, undue pain and

suffering, obstruction of justice, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, and physical, psychological,

economic duress. See Compl. at 4–6. He contends the FBI’s alleged bad acts have manifested in

myriad ways, including, but not limited to, “psycho technology,” loss of employment

opportunities, attempted murder, abduction, and identity theft. See id. at 4–7. He demands

millions in damages. See id. at 4–7.

This Court cannot exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 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”). As here, a court shall 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); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

For these reasons, the Complaint, ECF No. 1, and this case, are dismissed without

prejudice. Plaintiff’s pending motion for CM/ECF access, ECF No, 3, is denied as moot. A

separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: November 20, 2024 /s/_________________________ ANA C. REYES United States District Judge