Striplin v. Harris

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AAREN W. STRIPLIN,

Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 24-1651 (JEB) KAMALA D. HARRIS, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Plaintiff Aaren W. Striplin filed a Complaint that named dozens of Defendants as

“serial killers,” ranging from Vice President Kamala Harris and the Metropolitan Police

Department to Chuck Norris and Barron Trump. See ECF No. 2 (Compl.) at 2, 4, 7–8. As best

the Court can discern, Plaintiff alleges that he is the victim of “identity theft,” and that

Defendants are “resisting [his] arrest to steal [his] church, school, bank, hospital, store.” Id. at 1.

Plaintiff also accuses Defendants of violating the “Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organized

Crime Act,” committing a Ponzi Scheme, pyramid scheme, 23 homicides, and 169 counts of

court extortion, amidst a torrent of other indecipherable allegations. Id. at 4. He supports these

assertions with unelaborated references to “YouTube.com.” Id. at 7.

“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, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, plainly unsubstantial,

or no longer open to discussion.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (cleaned up);

see also Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (may dismiss claims that are

“essentially fictitious” – for example, where they suggest “bizarre conspiracy theories . . . [or] fantastic government manipulations of their will or mind”) (cleaned up). This is precisely what

the Complaint alleges here.

The Court is mindful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent

standards” than those applied to “formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404

U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court concludes that the

factual contentions that are identifiable are baseless and wholly incredible. For this reason, the

Complaint is frivolous and must be dismissed.

The Court, accordingly, will issue a contemporaneous Order dismissing the case without

prejudice.

/s/ James E. Boasberg JAMES E. BOASBERG Chief Judge Date: June 20, 2024