UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
JAMES WIDTFELDT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. )
)
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, )
et. al., ) Civil Action No. 17-1296 (EGS)
)
Defendants. )
)
ORDER
Plaintiff Mr. James Widtfeldt, an attorney proceeding pro
se, brings suit against fifteen defendants, including the
Internal Revenue Service, the United States Attorney General,
the Department of Justice, the United States Department of
Agriculture, the Department of the Treasury, the Office of the
High Commissioner on Human Rights, various individual IRS
officers and agents, the Nebraska Medical Association, the
Nebraska Bar Association, Mr. Douglas Peterson—the Nebraska
Attorney General, and Mr. Mark Weber—the Nebraska Counsel for
Discipline. Pending before the Court are the defendants’ motions
to dismiss and Mr. Widtfeldt’s motion for leave to file an
amended complaint. See Gov’t Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 3;
Peterson/Weber Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 5; Neb. Bar Ass’n Mot.
to Dismiss, ECF No. 6; Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 10. Because the
Court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Widtfeldt’s claim and because
1
his proposed amended complaint is futile, the defendants’
motions to dismiss are GRANTED and Mr. Widtfeldt’s motion for
leave to file an amended complaint is DENIED.
Mr. Widtfeldt’s complaint is impossible to decipher,
despite the Court’s best efforts. The nineteen-page complaint
seems to allege: (1) a conspiracy dating back to the Clinton
Administration regarding “wrongful Lyme Treatment Standard,” in
order to “create a national health epidemic with Lyme disease,”
Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶ 2; (2) city-ordered and Nebraska Supreme
Court-approved “break-ins” of Mr. Widtfeldt’s law firm office in
2015, see id. ¶¶ 3, 4; (3) the illegal disposal of a Native
American’s body, see id. ¶ 5; (4) improper IRS tax audits dating
back to 1970, see id. ¶ 6; (5) USDA’s repudiation of farm
subsidies worth $100 million, see id. ¶ 8; (6) conspiracy to
hide evidence regarding a 2002 IRS tax settlement, see id. ¶ 11;
(7) conspiracy by the Federal Election Commission to “chill” the
Christian Coalition’s freedom of speech, see id. ¶ 12; (8)
conspiracy by Democratic Party members to “chill” Mr.
Widtfeldt’s speech regarding global warming, specifically that a
massive volcano eruption caused global warming, see id. ¶ 14;
(9) failure to compensate Mr. Widtfeldt $5 trillion for his
Ph.D, which “saved a war with Russia,” see id. ¶ 17; (10)
conspiracy by Democratic Party members to pay $100 million to
each “Democrat Judge” and “elected Democrat Office Holder”, see
2
id. ¶ 14; among other allegations. Mr. Widtfeldt seeks $13
trillion dollars in attorneys’ fees, in addition to over $5
trillion in other damages. See id.
Try as it might, the Court can neither determine the
grounds for its jurisdiction nor Mr. Widtfeldt’s grounds for
relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(“A pleading that states a claim
for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, . . . (2) a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief”). “A complaint may be dismissed on
jurisdictional grounds when it is ‘patently insubstantial,’
presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Tooley v.
Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Best
v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994) and citing Bell v.
Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 683 (1946)). Indeed, “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) (quotations omitted). The trial court may dismiss
not only claims based on an indisputably meritless legal theory,
but also claims whose factual contentions are clearly
baseless. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328
(1989) (discussing court's authority to dismiss frivolous claims
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915). “A court need not assess whether a
3
plaintiff has standing before dismissing on alternative
jurisdictional grounds.” Tooley, 586 F.3d at 1009 (citing
Ruhrgas A.G. v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 578
(1999) (“there is no unyielding jurisdictional hierarchy”)).
On careful review of Mr. Widtfeldt’s complaint, and its
vague and unsupported allegations of government-created
epidemics, “break-ins,” partisan conspiracies, and bribery, the
Court concludes that Mr. Widtfeldt’s claims must be dismissed as
frivolous. See, e.g., Bickford v. Gov't of the U.S., 808 F.
Supp. 2d 175, 182 (D.D.C. 2011) (concluding that plaintiff's
“laundry list of wrongful acts and conclusory allegations to
support her theory of a conspiracy,” were “insufficient to allow
the case to go forward”)(citations and quotations omitted);
Newby v. Obama, 681 F. Supp. 2d 53, 56 (D.D.C. 2010)(dismissing
the plaintiff’s frivolous complaint for lack of jurisdiction
given her “bizarre conspiracy theories”).
Because Mr. Widtfeldt’s claims are “essentially
fictitious,” Best, 39 F.3d at 330, the Court concludes that it
does not have jurisdiction over the case. 1 The defendants’
1 Because the Court finds that Mr. Widtfeldt failed to state a
claim, the Court need not assess the defendants’ other
arguments. See Gov’t Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 3 (sovereign
immunity, improper service, failure to state a claim);
Peterson/Weber Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 5 (lack of standing,
sovereign immunity); Neb. Bar Ass’n Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 6
(failure to state a claim).
4
motions to dismiss are therefore GRANTED and Mr. Widtfeldt’s
claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as to all defendants.
Additionally, the Court DENIES Mr. Widtfeldt’s motion for
leave to file an amended complaint. See ECF No. 10. The proposed
amended complaint is essentially a copy of the original
complaint with two additional paragraphs. See id. ¶¶ 18, 19
(alleging that a city in Nebraska attacked Mr. Widtfeldt “with
allergens provoking a general or anaphylactic reaction”). These
additional paragraphs do not alter the Court’s analysis and do
not remedy the fatal flaws in Mr. Widtfeldt’s incomprehensible
complaint. While a court should “freely give leave [to amend]
when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), “courts may
deny a motion to amend a complaint as futile . . . if the
proposed claim would not survive a motion to dismiss,” James
Madison Ltd., by Hecht v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085, 1099 (D.C. Cir.
1996)(citations omitted).
This is a final, appealable Order.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge
July 6, 2018
5