UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
JESSE RILES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1329 (PLF)
)
TIMOTHY GEITHNER, Secretary, )
United States Department of the Treasury, )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on pro se plaintiff Jesse Riles’ complaint for
damages and injunctive relief and motion for a preliminary injunction. This is the second time
Mr. Riles has sought relief from this Court. On February 4, 2009, Mr. Riles filed a complaint
and a motion for a preliminary injunction which differed little, if at all, from the complaint and
motion for a preliminary injunction currently before the Court. On July 2, 2009, the Court issued
a Memorandum Opinion in which it concluded that the claims set forth in Mr. Riles’ first
complaint – all of which stemmed from his belief that the government was using advanced
technology to read his thoughts – were obviously frivolous. See Riles v. Geithner, Civil Action
No. 09-0214, 2009 WL 1886214, at *2 (D.D.C. July 2, 2009). The Court therefore dismissed
Mr. Riles’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id.; see also Watson v. United States, Civil Action No. 09-
0268, 2009 WL 377136, at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 13, 2009) (“‘[F]ederal 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, [or] obviously frivolous[.]”) (quoting
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974)) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Because Mr. Riles’ complaint in this case is identical in all relevant respects to the
complaint in his first case, the Court will dismiss it sua sponte for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. In addition, because it appears that Mr. Riles intends to continue clogging this
Court’s docket with meritless complaints and motions, the Court will bar him from filing any
future cases asserting claims identical to (or substantially similar to) the claims asserted in this
case or the claims asserted in his previous case, Civil Action No. 09-0214.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will issue this same day.
SO ORDERED.
/s/_________________________
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge
DATE: July 21, 2009
2