United States District Court, District of Columbia
G. Sullivan United States District Judge
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 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
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 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.
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 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”)).
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
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. The defendants' motions to dismiss are
therefore GRANTED and Mr. Widtfeldt's
claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as to
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).
a final, appealable Order.
 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);