FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~pURT JAN 1 2 2010
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLiMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and
Bankruptcy Courts
Patricia Kidd, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v.
)
) Civil Ac~ion No.
,
10 0053
) !
District of Columbia et ai., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINIO~
i
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se m~tion for a temporary restraining
i
i
order ("TRO") accompanied by her complaint and applicati01 to proceed informa pauperis. The
Court will grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny thelTRO motion and dismiss the case
I
I
as frivolous.
I
Plaintiff is a resident of the District of Columbia seekfng emergency relief against "the
I
D.C. Court Network." TRO Motion at 5 (page number supplied). She seeks a broad order
I
enjoining parties ranging from the District of Columbia MaY1r to the United States Supreme
i
I
COU'l1 from in essence making decisions adverse to her. See i~ at 4-13. Not only is the behavior
I
I
sought to be restrained too broad to fashion an appropriate or~er, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d), but
!
the motion is simply frivolous.
i
With regard to the complaint, plaintiff purports to suel for "malpractice," but she names as
defendants high-level District of Columbia officials, judges of this Court and the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia, as well as "Supreme Court for DF Circuit William Rehnquist" and
I
I
other entities and individuals with no apparent relationship tq plaintiff. The complaint consists
i
I
of disconnected, incomprehensible statements. A complaint tay be dismissed under 28 U.S.c.
I
§ 1915(e)(2) as frivolous when "there is indisputably absent ~ny factual and legal basis for the
asserted wrong," Brandon v. District of Columbia Bd. of parJle, 734 F.2d 56, 59 (D.C. Cir.
I
!
1984), or when it describes fantastic or delusional scenarios dr contains "fanciful factual
I
allegation[s]." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)1; accord Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328,
I
330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). This complaint qualifies for such trFatment. A separate Order of
dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: January ~, 2010
2