UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F I L E D

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUL 2 7 2011
Audrey€w@r» ) éi,'.i{'é; 1’.;?¢»\‘1'%‘.'.1.?..‘~§5?"¢‘§,'.‘.'.'.’§‘§,11
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No.
j 11 1366
Robert Mueller, et al., )
)
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

'l`his matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(€), the Court is
required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, is frivolous,
28 U.S.C, § 191 S(e)(Z)(B)(i), or upon a determination that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Plaintiff, a resident of Burlington, New Jersey, sues a variety of individuals, including
such high-level officials as President Barack Obama, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director
Robert Mueller, and former Central Intelligence Agency Director (noW Secretary of Defense)
Leon Panetta, and such ce1ebrities as Oprah Winfrey and Donald Trump. See Compl. Caption.
Plaintiff’ s outlandish allegations of discrimination, rape, and "illegal research" are the type of
fantastic or delusional scenarios warranting dismissal under § 19l5(e)(2) as frivolous. See
Nez`tzke 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 jurisdiction. Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010

(D.C. Cir. 20()9); see Caldwell v. Kagan, __ F. Supp.2d _, 2011 WL 1460432, at * 1 (D.D.C.,

Apr. 18, 2011) ("A district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when the complaint ‘is patently
insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for decision.' ") (quotz`ng Tooley, 586 F.3d

at 1009). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

643 »<..da~ »<e#

united states Dis{riet Judge ’
Date:July 31 ,2011

