United States District Court, District of Columbia
May 26, 2015
Audrey Taylor Carter, Plaintiff,
President George Bush et al., Defendants.
EMMET G. SULLIVAN, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Plaintiff, a resident of Hamilton, New Jersey, makes the same type of outlandish allegations against current and former high-level officials and certain celebrities that she has made in previous actions dismissed as frivolous. See generally Compl; cf. with Carter v. Bush, Civ. Action No. 12-1825, slip op. (D.D.C. Nov. 9, 2012); Carter v. Romney, Civ. Action No. 12-1648, slip op. (D.D.C. Oct. 4, 2012); Carter v. Obama, Civ. Action No. 12-0482, slip op. (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2012); Carter v. Dempsey, Civ. Action No. 11-1696, slip op. (D.D.C. Sept. 20, 2011) (citing Carter v. Dempsey, Civ. Action No. 11-1580)), aff'd, No. 11-5284 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 27, 2012). The accusations present the type of fantastic or delusional scenarios warranting dismissal under § 1915(e)(2) as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). In addition, the purported claims are so "patently insubstantial" as to deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009); see Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F.Supp.2d 177, 178 (D.D.C. 2011) ("A district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when the complaint is patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for decision.'") (quoting Tooley, 586 F.3d at 1009).
Since plaintiff's last dismissal occurred in 2012, the Court will not consider sanctions at this time. However, plaintiff is warned, as she was then, that her persistence in submitting frivolous lawsuits for filing may result ultimately in the Court enjoining her from the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in future actions. See Carter v. Bush, No. 12-1932 (UNA), slip op. (D.D.C. Nov. 29, 2012) (citing Hurt v. Social Security Admin., 544 F.3d 308, 310 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Butler v. Dep't of Justice, 492 F.3d 440, 446 (D.C. Cir. 2007); Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 208 F.3d 1032, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.