UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DERRICK B. TARTT,
Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 19-1615 (TJK) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Derrick B. Tartt, proceeding pro se, asserts that he is the victim of a sprawling conspiracy
perpetrated by almost 100 individuals and institutions, as he has alleged in at least one previous
lawsuit. Many of these defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint on a variety of grounds,
including that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. For the reasons stated below, the Court
agrees that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and will dismiss the complaint with prejudice as to
all defendants.
Background
Tartt filed the instant 208-page, 798-paragraph complaint against 93 separate defendants,
including two insurance companies; several lawyers and law firms; the United States
Departments of Justice, Labor, and the Treasury; members of the United States military, State of
Illinois officials, several federal district court judges (one of whom is deceased); and roughly
half the judges of the Seventh Circuit. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) at 15–17. 1 Collectively, Tartt
contends, they comprise “the Conspirators.” Id.
1 For ease of reference, the Court cites to the complaint’s page numbers (as reflected at the top of each page), because some paragraph numbers appear more than once. See Compl. at 102, 123. Tartt alleges that defendants are responsible for 17 counts of unlawful activity ranging
from violations of the Administrative Procedures Act, the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and several Illinois
statutes, as well as for fraud upon the court, perjury, obstruction of justice, and constitutional
violations. See generally Compl. Although Tartt’s complaint is rambling and often incoherent,
his core allegation is that he was a victim of a large, multi-year conspiracy through which
defendants coordinated to discriminate against him and deny him certain employment or other
benefits largely by the way they handled his prior litigation. See id. Tartt includes a footnote on
the first page of his complaint stating, in part, that:
The courts, employers, federal, and state of IL agencies have conspired to complicate, suppress, deceive and deny rights and benefits through fraud upon the court, violation of the 13th Amendment by Judge Norgle without due process (14th) and the USA for 23 years, involuntary servitude, a slave, qualifies plaintiff for reparations criterial by Norgle’s-Plaintiff is “alive” not a descendent [sic].
Id. at 15. Additionally, Tartt complains of other, unrelated wrongs, including legal malpractice
related to his mortgage applications. Id. at 132–34.
“To make matters worse,” Tartt alleges, “the United States has been abusing and
torturing [him] with Radio Frequency Implant Devices.” Id. at 92. Tartt explains that
“according to an ex-naval officer trained to abuse ‘Targeted Individuals’ and others, there are
over 300,000 civilian and military persons being abused and tortured with implants,” and that he
“will have permanent and irreversible damage to body and possible lose both lower extremities”
if the torture does not stop. Id. at 118. According to Tartt:
This demonstrates just how connected this conspiracy is and “voluminous,” involving federal and state courts, 7 federal agencies, 4 state of IL agencies, including both Attorney Generals [sic], possibly 20 or more judicial officers, 12 employers named and unnamed, multiple military and private citizens, major unnamed and named corporations (unnamed includes Apple, Comcast/Infinity, & Microsoft) and the numerous laws both state and federal “the Conspiracy” is
2 willing to violate to protect the USA conspiracy and “secrets” (RFID) from the public to avoid paying the debt owed the Plaintiff for signing the “Early Commission ROTC” contract, August 25, 1978 at age 18.
Id. at 218–19. For these and other violations, Tartt seeks damages, see generally Compl., and
other relief, including “[s]anctions and impeachment of Judges, Easterbrook, Ripple, Williams,
Posner, Kanne, Manion and Norgle,” id. at 162.
Tartt has also moved for preliminary relief, seeking, in part, an injunction “to cease and
desist illegal (or legal) activity by the United States of America and co-defendants to torture with
RFID, harass, embarrass or humiliate, interfere with professional and personal freedom and
activity in violation of the U.S. Constitution, local, state and federal laws by the defendants or
any one [sic] on their behalf.” ECF No. 50 at 22. He explains that defendants “need[] to provide
detailed information of location, how used or turned off or removed (safely), when inserted by
whom and how.” Id. at 23. And he asks the Court, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, to
“[v]acate all order [sic] due to ‘fraud on the court’” in his earlier lawsuits. Id.
As noted, this is not Tartt’s first foray into the federal courts. Nor is it the first time he
has advanced the same or similar conspiracy theories. In December 2000, Tartt filed two cases
in the Northern District of Illinois: one against Northwest Suburban Anesthesiologists (NSA),
and the other against both NSA and Northwest Community Hospital (NCH). See Tartt v. Nw.
Cmty. Hosp., No. 00-7960 (CN), 2004 WL 2254041, at *1 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (describing both
cases). Both suits were eventually dismissed with prejudice—the first for failure to state a claim
and the second on res judicata grounds. See Tartt v. Nw. Cmty. Hosp., 453 F.3d 817, 820–21
(7th Cir. 2006). The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Id. at 823. Then, in November 2013, Tartt filed
another suit in the Northern District of Illinois against NSA and NCH, as well as about 60 other
defendants, including lawyers and judges involved in his previous lawsuits. See Tartt v. Magna
3 Health Sys., No. 13-cv-8191, 2014 WL 4087220, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2014). In that 1060-
paragraph, 278-page pleading, Tartt alleged that the defendants “participated in a vast campaign
of discrimination that began with and snowballed from an allegedly improper delay of his ROTC
officer commission in the early 1980s” and that “over the next three decades” they conspired to
commit fraud against him, deny him employment benefits, force him into servitude, and use
“enhancement and torture to further their cause of ‘denying benefits of employment.’” Id.
(quoting Am. Compl. ¶ 8).
On the court’s own motion, Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. of the Northern District of Illinois
dismissed with prejudice all claims against the NSA, NCH, the federal judge defendants, the
United States, several federal and state agencies, and the attorneys involved in his prior lawsuits.
Id. at *4–6. The court then dismissed without prejudice the remainder of Tartt’s claims for
failure to state a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a). Id. at *5–6. The court also imposed a sanction of $100 on Tartt for filing
frivolous claims against federal judges. Id. After Tartt filed his fourth amended complaint,
Judge Dow, Jr., dismissed all his remaining claims with prejudice under Rules 12(b)(6) and 8(a).
Tartt v. Magna Health Systems, No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DERRICK B. TARTT,
Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 19-1615 (TJK) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Derrick B. Tartt, proceeding pro se, asserts that he is the victim of a sprawling conspiracy
perpetrated by almost 100 individuals and institutions, as he has alleged in at least one previous
lawsuit. Many of these defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint on a variety of grounds,
including that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. For the reasons stated below, the Court
agrees that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and will dismiss the complaint with prejudice as to
all defendants.
Background
Tartt filed the instant 208-page, 798-paragraph complaint against 93 separate defendants,
including two insurance companies; several lawyers and law firms; the United States
Departments of Justice, Labor, and the Treasury; members of the United States military, State of
Illinois officials, several federal district court judges (one of whom is deceased); and roughly
half the judges of the Seventh Circuit. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) at 15–17. 1 Collectively, Tartt
contends, they comprise “the Conspirators.” Id.
1 For ease of reference, the Court cites to the complaint’s page numbers (as reflected at the top of each page), because some paragraph numbers appear more than once. See Compl. at 102, 123. Tartt alleges that defendants are responsible for 17 counts of unlawful activity ranging
from violations of the Administrative Procedures Act, the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and several Illinois
statutes, as well as for fraud upon the court, perjury, obstruction of justice, and constitutional
violations. See generally Compl. Although Tartt’s complaint is rambling and often incoherent,
his core allegation is that he was a victim of a large, multi-year conspiracy through which
defendants coordinated to discriminate against him and deny him certain employment or other
benefits largely by the way they handled his prior litigation. See id. Tartt includes a footnote on
the first page of his complaint stating, in part, that:
The courts, employers, federal, and state of IL agencies have conspired to complicate, suppress, deceive and deny rights and benefits through fraud upon the court, violation of the 13th Amendment by Judge Norgle without due process (14th) and the USA for 23 years, involuntary servitude, a slave, qualifies plaintiff for reparations criterial by Norgle’s-Plaintiff is “alive” not a descendent [sic].
Id. at 15. Additionally, Tartt complains of other, unrelated wrongs, including legal malpractice
related to his mortgage applications. Id. at 132–34.
“To make matters worse,” Tartt alleges, “the United States has been abusing and
torturing [him] with Radio Frequency Implant Devices.” Id. at 92. Tartt explains that
“according to an ex-naval officer trained to abuse ‘Targeted Individuals’ and others, there are
over 300,000 civilian and military persons being abused and tortured with implants,” and that he
“will have permanent and irreversible damage to body and possible lose both lower extremities”
if the torture does not stop. Id. at 118. According to Tartt:
This demonstrates just how connected this conspiracy is and “voluminous,” involving federal and state courts, 7 federal agencies, 4 state of IL agencies, including both Attorney Generals [sic], possibly 20 or more judicial officers, 12 employers named and unnamed, multiple military and private citizens, major unnamed and named corporations (unnamed includes Apple, Comcast/Infinity, & Microsoft) and the numerous laws both state and federal “the Conspiracy” is
2 willing to violate to protect the USA conspiracy and “secrets” (RFID) from the public to avoid paying the debt owed the Plaintiff for signing the “Early Commission ROTC” contract, August 25, 1978 at age 18.
Id. at 218–19. For these and other violations, Tartt seeks damages, see generally Compl., and
other relief, including “[s]anctions and impeachment of Judges, Easterbrook, Ripple, Williams,
Posner, Kanne, Manion and Norgle,” id. at 162.
Tartt has also moved for preliminary relief, seeking, in part, an injunction “to cease and
desist illegal (or legal) activity by the United States of America and co-defendants to torture with
RFID, harass, embarrass or humiliate, interfere with professional and personal freedom and
activity in violation of the U.S. Constitution, local, state and federal laws by the defendants or
any one [sic] on their behalf.” ECF No. 50 at 22. He explains that defendants “need[] to provide
detailed information of location, how used or turned off or removed (safely), when inserted by
whom and how.” Id. at 23. And he asks the Court, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, to
“[v]acate all order [sic] due to ‘fraud on the court’” in his earlier lawsuits. Id.
As noted, this is not Tartt’s first foray into the federal courts. Nor is it the first time he
has advanced the same or similar conspiracy theories. In December 2000, Tartt filed two cases
in the Northern District of Illinois: one against Northwest Suburban Anesthesiologists (NSA),
and the other against both NSA and Northwest Community Hospital (NCH). See Tartt v. Nw.
Cmty. Hosp., No. 00-7960 (CN), 2004 WL 2254041, at *1 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (describing both
cases). Both suits were eventually dismissed with prejudice—the first for failure to state a claim
and the second on res judicata grounds. See Tartt v. Nw. Cmty. Hosp., 453 F.3d 817, 820–21
(7th Cir. 2006). The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Id. at 823. Then, in November 2013, Tartt filed
another suit in the Northern District of Illinois against NSA and NCH, as well as about 60 other
defendants, including lawyers and judges involved in his previous lawsuits. See Tartt v. Magna
3 Health Sys., No. 13-cv-8191, 2014 WL 4087220, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2014). In that 1060-
paragraph, 278-page pleading, Tartt alleged that the defendants “participated in a vast campaign
of discrimination that began with and snowballed from an allegedly improper delay of his ROTC
officer commission in the early 1980s” and that “over the next three decades” they conspired to
commit fraud against him, deny him employment benefits, force him into servitude, and use
“enhancement and torture to further their cause of ‘denying benefits of employment.’” Id.
(quoting Am. Compl. ¶ 8).
On the court’s own motion, Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. of the Northern District of Illinois
dismissed with prejudice all claims against the NSA, NCH, the federal judge defendants, the
United States, several federal and state agencies, and the attorneys involved in his prior lawsuits.
Id. at *4–6. The court then dismissed without prejudice the remainder of Tartt’s claims for
failure to state a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a). Id. at *5–6. The court also imposed a sanction of $100 on Tartt for filing
frivolous claims against federal judges. Id. After Tartt filed his fourth amended complaint,
Judge Dow, Jr., dismissed all his remaining claims with prejudice under Rules 12(b)(6) and 8(a).
Tartt v. Magna Health Systems, No. 13-8191, 2016 WL 6585281, at *2–10 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 7,
2016). The Seventh Circuit affirmed and imposed an additional sanction of “$1,500 for filing a
frivolous appeal.” Tartt v. Magna Health Sys., No. 17-1023, 2017 WL 4772538 (7th Cir. Feb.
14, 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 120 (2017), reh’g denied, 138 S. Ct. 466 (2017).
Since Tartt filed the instant complaint, several defendants moved to dismiss. ECF Nos.
11, 14, 24, 27, 28, 31, 36, and 45. At least one defendant challenged the Court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction over the entirety of the complaint. ECF No. 28.
4 Analysis
A motion under Rule 12(b)(1) challenges the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. “The
federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and they lack the power to presume the existence
of jurisdiction in order to dispose of a case on any other grounds.” Tuck v. Pan Am. Health Org.,
668 F.2d 547, 549 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “[T]he plaintiff [has] the burden of establishing that the
court has jurisdiction.” Luke v. United States, 942 F. Supp. 2d 154, 161 (D.D.C. 2013).
Additionally, “the plaintiff’s factual allegations in the complaint bear close scrutiny in resolving
a 12(b)(1) motion.” Id. Moreover, “[b]ecause subject-matter jurisdiction focuses on the court’s
power to hear the plaintiff’s claim, a Rule 12(b)(1) motion imposes on the court an affirmative
obligation to ensure that it is acting within the scope of its jurisdictional authority.” Grand
Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F. Supp. 2d 9, 13 (D.D.C. 2001). The Court
also possesses the power to “dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction”
where it presents “no federal question suitable for decision.” Vasaturo v. Peterka, 203
F. Supp. 3d 42, 44 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).
As discussed above, at least one defendant has moved to dismiss Tartt’s complaint,
arguing that it “contain[s] nothing more than conspiracy theories and fanciful allegations.” ECF
No. 28 at 9. The Supreme 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.’” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974) (quoting
Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904)). To fall within this doctrine,
“the claims [must] be flimsier than “doubtful or questionable’—they must be ‘essentially
fictitious.’” Best, 39 F.3d at 330 (quoting Hagans, 415 U.S. at 536–37). For example, this
doctrine applies to “bizarre conspiracy theories” or instances in which plaintiffs allege “fantastic
government manipulations of their will or mind.” Id.; see also Curran v. Holder, 626
5 F. Supp. 2d 30, 34 (D.D.C. 2009) (“Plaintiff’s complaint strings together a series of unconnected
events to support her conclusion that she has been singled out for harassment by the
government.”).
Upon reviewing Tartt’s complaint, the Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over it. In sum, his allegations are precisely the sort of conspiracy theories that the
Court is powerless to entertain. They appear to have their origin in long-ago disputes concerning
Tartt’s employment or other benefits. But the core of the complaint—the alleged conspiracy—
concerns the many individuals and institutions, including judges, lawyers, and government
employees and agencies, that he has encountered while litigating those disputes and against
whom he harbors grievances for failing to provide him relief. For example, Tartt contends that
“Conspirator Judge Darrah, denied discovery and the counterclaim against the USA’s conspiracy
to deny rights and benefit of USERRA, is a violation of USERRA 4323 (a)(2), therefore Darrah
is guilty of fraud upon the court, 28 USC 455, a crime.” Compl. at 52. Tartt also alleges that his
four appeals “have either been validated, ignored, fabricated or suppressed in fraud upon the
court to obstruct and attempt to cover-up the conspiracies of the District Court to protect
themselves and the District Court judicial officers from charges of fraud upon the court.” Id. at
58. Regarding the Seventh Circuit specifically, Tartt further alleges:
Conspirator Judges Easterbrook, Woods, Posner (who confessed to crime, fraud upon the court for 39 years involving pro se minority plaintiff-NY Times exit interview), Kanne, Ripple, Williams, and Manion, conspired to deny the rights and benefits of military and civilian employment. The other 7th Cir. judicial officers appear to be guilty of fraud upon the court, as well guilty for ignoring fraud upon the court in misconduct conference and multiple appeals (except Justice Fraum [sic]).
Id. at 58–59. As previously noted, Tartt also sprinkles in several seemingly disconnected
allegations, such as his assertion that he is the victim of Radio Frequency Implant Device torture.
6 Tartt does point out that, as a pro se plaintiff, he is entitled to some leeway. He notes that
while his “complaint surely has flaws, however, at a minimum has enough causes of action that
warrant denying any motion to dismiss, provide discovery, and a trial with appointment of legal
counsel. The latter two have been denied due to conspiracy, discrimination, corruption, cover-
up, obstruction, fraud, perjury, and fraud upon the court.” Id. at 219–20. The Court is aware
“that a pro se complaint must be held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Wilson v. Obama, 770 F. Supp. 2d 188, 192 (D.D.C. 2001).
Even so, that leeway does not allow the Court to exercise jurisdiction over “fundamentally
unrealistic allegations,” id., such as the sweeping conspiracy of which Tartt complains.
For all the above reasons, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint
in its entirety. The Court will therefore grant the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 28, and dismiss the
complaint with prejudice as to all defendants. A separate order will issue.
/s/ Timothy J. Kelly TIMOTHY J. KELLY United States District Judge
Date: October 21, 2019