Strege v. Federal Burrow Investigations

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 30, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-3437
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ADAM STREGE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-03437 (UNA) v. ) ) FBI, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint, ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”), and an

application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis

application and dismiss the case for the reasons discussed below.

“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 Las Cruces, New Mexico, sues the FBI and three of its officials, as

well as “Uranium One,” for $40 million in damages. See Compl. at 1, 3; Civil Cover Sheet

(“CCS”), ECF No. 1-1. In addition to failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

10(a)-(b), and D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1), (d), and (g), the complaint is difficult to track. It

appears to begin as a challenge to an arrest and charges filed against Plaintiff, ultimately dismissed,

in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. See Compl. at 2-4; Compl. Exhs., ECF

No. 1-3. But the supporting facts, to the extent that they can be described as such, are bizarre and digressive. Plaintiff believes that Defendants have, inter alia, engaged in a widespread

“[c]onspiracy to [c]ommit [g]enocide and war crime[s],” under Canadian law, and that, in doing

so, Defendants have executed various fantastic acts of wrongdoing, including, for example,

conceal[ing] putting Human Body Parts in Hamburger, Human Hearts in Nuclear Fuel, Human Hearts in Nuclear Missiles, Putting Spent Nuclear Fuel and Uranium in Peoples Food and semen sperm in Nuclear Missiles triggers Covid 19 semen in 2 nuclear reactors under World Trade Center Collapse and FBI website states that Adam Strege is being prosecuted and Call the FBI Public Affairs Officer Limary Cruz-Rubio conspire to maliciously false arrest Adam again.

Id. at 1-2.

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 . . . .” (cleaned up)); 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 where the plaintiff

“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 and thus must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

The Court also notes that Plaintiff has attempted to file this matter as a class action, see

CCS, which he cannot do. A pro se litigant can represent only himself in federal court. See 28

U.S.C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel . . . .”); Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona, 729 F.2d 831, 834 (D.C.

Cir. 1984) (explaining that an individual who is “not a member of the bar of any court . . . may

appear pro se but is not qualified to appear in . . . [federal] court as counsel for others”); see also

United States ex rel. Rockefeller v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 274 F. Supp. 2d 10, 16 (D.D.C. 2003)

(“[A] class member cannot represent the class without counsel, because a class action suit affects

the rights of the other members of the class”), aff'd sub nom. Rockefeller ex rel. United States v.

Wash. TRU Sols. LLC, No. 03-7120, 2004 WL 180264 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 21, 2004).

Consequently, this case is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion for CM/ECF

access, ECF No. 3, is denied as moot. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: November 30, 2023 /s/_________________________ ANA C. REYES United States District Judge