Christian v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED FEB 19 2021 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia PATRICK CHRISTIAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 21-0080 (UNA) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, Dkt. 1, and his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2. Generally, Plaintiff alleges that assorted governments, government and elected officials, courts, judges, public figures and other individuals have conspired to violate his constitutional rights. Dkt. 1. Under the statute governing in forma pauperis proceedings, the Court is required to dismiss a case “at any time” it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Here, having reviewed the complaint carefully, the Court concludes that it cannot discern what claim or claims Plaintiff intends to bring. Because Plaintiff’s complaint lacks coherence and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court is required to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Gwinnell-Kennedy v. U.S. Gov’t Judiciary, No. 09-cv-737, 2009 WL 1089543, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 22, 2009) (summarily dismissing complaint under § 1915(e)(2) because it was “incoherent”); McGuire v. U.S. Dist. Court, No. 10-cv-696, 2010 WL 1855858, at *1 (D.D.C. May 4, 2010) (summarily dismissing complaint under § 1915(e)(2) because it was “largely incoherent and nonsensical”); cf. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[A] complaint, containing . . . . factual allegations and legal conclusions . . . lack[ing] an arguable basis either in law or in fact” shall be dismissed). Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. /s/ RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge DATE: February 19, 2021