UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FILED
JUL - 9 2020
BRANDON MICHAEL JACOBS, )
) Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Plaintiff, ) Court for the District of Columbia
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 20-1818 (UNA)
)
SUBSEQUENT LIVING GIRLS )
AND FAMILIES, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis and his pro se complaint.
Plaintiff allegedly maintains a list of girls in a “Subsequent Living contract.” Compl. at
1. He “has biometric suspension with a compelling need under satellite military custody to sleep
with the girls that are stated in [his] subsequent living contract.” Id. Plaintiff “has a compelling
need to reproduce with these girls,” id., and their “children must be made with artificial
insemination[,]” id. at 2. The Court’s role “is to pull informative quarantines titled Subsequent
Living, Superficial Exile, Excelsior Exile, and Biometrics for this case from the informative
quarantine section in National Archives, Washington, DC.” Id. at 1.
“[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is
frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989); see Brandon v. District of Columbia Bd. of Parole, 734 F.2d 56, 59 (D.C. Cir.
1984). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in fact when “the facts alleged are clearly baseless, a
1
category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.” Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Based on its review of the instant complaint and the
allegations set forth therein, the Court deems the instant complaint subject to dismissal as
frivolous.
The Court will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss
the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An Order consistent with
this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
DATE: July 7, 2020 /s/
JAMES E. BOASBERG
United States District Judge
2