Rice v. Biden

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: October 29, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-2414
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JONATHAN RICE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 24-02414 (UNA) ) ) JOSEPH BIDEN et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, a Georgia state prisoner appearing pro se, has filed a complaint and a motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The Court will grant the IFP motion and dismiss this

action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (requiring immediate dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint against

a government official that is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).

In this action brought against President Joe Biden and U.S. Attorney General Merrick

Garland, Plaintiff alleges that in December 2010 when he was released from Hays State Prison in

Trion, Georgia, then-President Barack Obama and Vice President Biden violated his constitutional

rights by stating that Plaintiff could “start a civil war in America.” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 4.

According to Plaintiff, “the Attorney General in Atlanta year 2010 stated that I be watch[ed] by a

private satellite, people w[ere] talking about killing me when I got release[ed] from this prison . .

. so they can start the civil war in America. They all stated they [were] sorry but nobody really

tr[ied] to help me.” Id. Plaintiff alleges further that “the Obama Family wanted me to come to

Washington, D.C., to the White House . . . so they can sit me down and talk to me of what’s going

on . . . in the world and dealing with China President and China Military.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff appears to offer his assistance to President Biden on matters pertaining to Russia, Russian

President Vladimir Putin, and China because he “know[s]” that the Biden Administration is

“having hard times.” Id. Plaintiff requests this Court’s “help” with his “Petition of Habeas Corpus,

to be release[d] from this prison,” id., namely, Hays State Prison in Georgia, id. at 3, but the

immediate custodian rule precludes this district court from entertaining “a habeas petition

involving present physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its territorial

jurisdiction.” Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Crucially, a complaint supported as here 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); see

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate

when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible[.]”); Crisafi v.

Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“A court may dismiss as frivolous complaints

reciting bare legal conclusions with no suggestion of supporting facts, or postulating events and

circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind.”). Accordingly, this case will be dismissed. A separate

order accompanies this opinion.

_________/s/_____________ CARL J. NICHOLS Date: October 29, 2024 United States District Judge

.