Ruff v. United States

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: October 26, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-2450
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BOBBIE DEANNA RUFF, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-02450 (UNA) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. )

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, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant

the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),

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).

Plaintiff, a resident of River Rouge, Michigan, sues the United States for $888 trillion in

damages, alleging that she was “attacked by weapons of war,” and “injected with a brain disease”

in May 2020. She next contends that, in April 2022, “God showed up and gifted [her] the DNA

antibody [] which was unknown to man.” Finally, she asserts that, from 2018 to date, the FBI has “formed troops” to stalk and harass her, in contravention of the “Chemical Weapons Convention

Treaty.”

This 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.”). Therefore, 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. The instant complaint falls squarely into this category. In addition to failing

to state a claim for relief or establish this Court’s jurisdiction, the complaint is frivolous on its face.

Consequently, this case is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff’s pending motion to

appoint counsel, ECF No. 3, is denied as moot. A separate order accompanies this memorandum

opinion.

Date: October 26, 2023 __________/s/_________________ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge