Sherven v. Dick Diddler and the Asshole Ticklers

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 7, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-2970
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MATTHEW J. SHERVEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-02970 (UNA) v. ) ) DICK DIDDLER, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the 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)(i),

by which the Court is required to dismiss a case “at any time” if it determines that the action “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), 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 has filed an incomprehensible complaint for damages containing profane and

baseless allegations against a non-existent defendant purportedly affiliated with the CIA. See ECF

No. 1. This Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a “patent[ly] insubstantial”

complaint. 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.”); see 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))). Consequently, the 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 the pleading “postulat[es] 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. A separate order accompanies this

memorandum opinion.

Date: November 7, 2023 /s/_________________________ ANA C. REYES United States District Judge