United States District Court, District of Columbia
VICTOR A. LEJI, Plaintiff,
U.S. DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants.
matter is before the Court on its initial review of
plaintiffs pro se complaint ("Compl.") and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauper is.
The Court will grant the in forma pauperis
application and dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B), which allows for dismissal of a plaintiff s
complaint which fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted or is frivolous or malicious.
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009), quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A complaint that lacks "an
arguable basis either in law or in fact" is frivolous,
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and a
"complaint plainly abusive of the judicial process is
properly typed malicious," Crisafi v. Holland,
655 F.2d 1305, l3O9(D.C. Cir. 1981).
Victor Leji, sues the Department of Homeland Security, the
Department of Justice, the D.C. Metro Police Department, and
the District of Columbia Government. Compl. at caption.
Plaintiff alleges that, for over twenty years, defendants
have "falsely accused" him of being "a
terrorist," defamed his name, monitored, intimidated,
harassed, humiliated, and tracked him ". . . as a
criminal[, ]" anywhere he goes. Id. at 2
¶¶ 2-6; 3 ¶¶ 1-3- As a result, plaintiff
alleges that he has been denied employment, lost real
property, accumulated debt that includes $60, 000 in child
support, and is homeless. Id. at 3 ¶ 3.
Plaintiff broadly alleges Fourth Amendment violations,
obstruction of justice, and invasion of privacy, and seeks
monetary damages. Id. at 6 ¶¶ 7-9; 7
¶¶ 2-8; 8 ¶ 1; 18 ¶ 3.
instant complaint presents many of the same "fanciful
allegations" that this Court previously reviewed under
§ 1915(e) and found to be frivolous. Leji v. U.S.
Dep't of Homeland Sec, No. 16-cv-00105 (BAH), 2016
WL 3812924, at *1 (D.D.C. April 28, 2017); Leji v.
Dep't of Homeland Sec, No. 15-cv-00387 (UNA), 2015
WL 1299361, at * 1 (D.D.C. Mar. 17, 2015).
court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a
frivolous complaint. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528,
536-37 (1974) ("Over the years, this Court has
repeatedly held that the 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.' ") (quoting Newburyport Water
Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904));
Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir.
2009) (examining cases dismissed "for patent
insubstantiality," including where the plaintiff
allegedly "was subjected to a campaign of surveillance
and harassment deriving from uncertain origins.").
plaintiff seemingly seeks review of alleged
"fraudulent" decisions issued by the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Compl. at 20-21;
27-28; 34-36, 44-45; 49. As a general rule, applicable here,
a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review the
decisions of other courts, including higher courts. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions);
See Panko v. Rodak, 606 F.2d 168, 171 n.6 (7th Cir.
1979), cert, denied, 444 U.S. 1081 (1980);
United States v. Choi, 818 F.Supp.2d 79, 85 (D.D.C.
2011) (citing Lewis v. Green, 629 F.Supp. 546, 553
(D.D.C. 1986)); Fleming v. United States, 847
F.Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994) (applying District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482
(1983), and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S.
413, 415, 416 (1923)), aff'd, No. 94-5079, 1994
WL 474995 (D.C. Cir. 1994), cert, denied, 513 U.S.
1150 (1995). Similarly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to
review or reverse the decisions of the Superior Court.
See Mooreman v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 10-1219, 2010
WL 2884661, at * 1 (D.D.C. July 10, 2010); Fleming,
847 F.Supp. at 172 (D.D.C. 1994).
may dismiss a complaint as frivolous "when the facts
alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible," Denton v. Hernandez,504 U.S. 25,
33 (1992), or "postulat[e] events and circumstances of a
wholly fanciful kind," Crisafi, 655 F.2d at
1307-08. In addition to failing to state a claim for relief,
the instant complaint is deemed frivolous on its face.
Consequently, the ...