United States District Court, District of Columbia
February 18, 2014
Brad Kempo, Plaintiff,
Government of the United States of America, Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action "at any time'' it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).
Plaintiff is a resident of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, suing the United States. In a prolix 64-page complaint, plaintiff seems to accuse Canada, China, and the United States of various misdeeds. The complaint, exemplified by the following statements, is mostly incoherent. Plaintiff alleges that "during the last quarter century," he experienced "(1) military experimentation, (2) hypnosis torture, (3) social, intimacy, professional and financial deprivation and (4) retaliation coercions, intimidation, harassment and fear generation has been and continues to be extremely infantile . .. .'' Compl. at 58, ¶ 2.93. The involvement of the United States, the only named defendant, is unclear. Plaintiff alleges that "[t]he DEFENDANT breached the duty of care it owed him; the duty arising as a result of it and KEMPO being members of NATO 2.0 and the agreement pled supra.'" Id. at 59, ¶ 2.94 (capitalizations in original). Plaintiff seeks "[s]pecific performance of all terms of [an unknown] agreement," and an unspecified amount of monetary damages. Id. at 64.
The law is clear that "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.' " Hagcrns v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-7 (1974) (quoting Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904)); accord Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ("A complaint may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds when it "is 'patently insubstantial,' presenting no federal question suitable for decision.") (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). The instant complaint satisfies this standard and, thus, will be dismissed with prejudice. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.