Weidrick v. Barack Obama

Opinion

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN 1 1 2012 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts tor the District of Columbia Mary Jo Weidrick, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 12 0944 ) President Barack Obama, et al. ) ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and

application for leave to proceed informapauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is

required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, is frivolous.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Plaintiff, a resident of Sarasota, Florida, sues the current and former presidents and vice

presidents of the United States and a host of other high-level political figures and executives of

various broadcasting companies. She alleges that "[t]he Defendants have tortured and terrorized

the Plaintiff24/7 since October 31, 1989." Campi. at 2. The complaint's allegations decline

from that first sentence. Plaintiff alleges, for example, that defendants "have raped [her] with

mind-reading equipment," have CIA agents stalking her, and have used "police sirens and the

local train whistle to reinforce [her] thoughts oftheir death threats ... in real time." !d. at 2-3.

Plaintiffs outlandish accusations are the type of fantastic or delusional scenarios

warranting dismissal under§ 1915(e)(2) as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,325

(1989); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, the allegations

"constitute the sort of patently insubstantial claims" that deprive the Court of subject matter

I ·1} /f\ ' j jurisdiction. Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009); see Caldwell v.

Kagan, 777 F. Supp.2d 177, 178 (D.D.C. 2011) ("A district court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction when the complaint 'is patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable

for decision.'") (quoting Tooley, 586 F.3d at 1009). Hence, the complaint will be dismissed with

prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

~ United States District Judge Date: June .) , 2012