United States District Court, District of Columbia
matter, filed pro se, is before the Court on
consideration of plaintiff s application to proceed in
forma pauperis and complaint. The application will be
granted, and this case will be dismissed as frivolous.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 A (requiring immediate
dismissal of a prisoner's complaint upon a determination
that it, among other listed grounds, is frivolous).
is a Georgia state prisoner serving a 20-year sentence for
aggravated stalking. Compl. at 1. Plaintiff claims also to be
a "Pre-Eminent Jurist, Dr., LL.M, ISD/PhD." Compl.
Caption. He has sued both chambers of the United States
Congress, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. Plaintiffs narrative cast as factual
allegations is difficult to follow. The gist of the
complaint, however, is that the defendants have subjected
plaintiff, an African American, to "illegal custody by
virtue of involuntary servitude" due to his race and
"national origin." Compl. at 17. Plaintiff posits
that "Congress failed to abolish U.S.C.A. [sic]
Thirteenth Const. Amend.[, ] which gives white supremacist
and white nationalist the right to frame any black man or
color person with a crime arbitrary and capriciously by
throwing on him as many charges as possible with hope one
sticks." Id. He alleges, among other things,
that he "was abducted in violation of federal interstate
Kidnapping Act" and, as an African American, he
"has no political muscle." Id. The
accusations continue in this manner for six additional pages.
As relief, plaintiff seeks "repeal" of certain laws
and of the clause in the Thirteenth Amendment that
"except[s]" from the ban on involuntary servitude
"punishment for crime[, ] [as] they frame innocent
people of crimes they did not commit." Compl. at 24. He
also seeks to "abolish common law of absolute immunity
forjudges and prosecutor[s] because it is unfetted [sic]
power that bears judicial tyranny and intimidation" and
"to purge the courts of those who hold white supremacist
or white nationalistic ideology." Id.
"in forma pauperis complaint is properly
dismissed as frivolous ... if it is clear from the face of
the pleading that the named defendant is absolutely immune
from suit on the claims asserted." Crisafl v.
Holland 655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The
allegations, such as they are, against the U.S. Congress are
quintessentialy "lawmaking activities" that are
fully protected by the Constitution's Speech or Debate
Clause, U.S. Const, art. I, § 6, cl. 1. Chastain v.
Sundquist, 833 F.2d 311, 313 (D.C. Cir. 1987); see
Id. at 314 ("actions taken in committee hearings,
proceedings, and reports, or by vote .. . fall within the
constitutional zone of protection") (citations
any remaining claims, complaints premised on fantastic or
delusional scenarios or supported wholly by allegations
lacking "an arguable basis either in law or in
fact" are also subject to dismissal as frivolous.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989);
see Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)
("[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate
when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or
the wholly incredible[.]"); Best v. Kelly, 39
F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (a court may dismiss as
frivolous claims suggesting "bizarre conspiracy
theories") (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted)). The instant complaint not only satisfies that
standard but seems to fit plaintiffs litigation style.
See Redford v. Planchard, No. 1:09-MI-0199,
2009 WL 3158175, at *1 (N.D.Ga. Sept. 25, 2009) (noting
"that Plaintiff Mike Redford has filed at least sixteen
(16) civil actions, including this one, in this court since
October 4, 2002," which "have all been dismissed as
frivolous or for failure to state a
claim"). Because the Court foresees no possibility
of curing the defects of the instant complaint, it will
dismiss this case with prejudice. See Firestone v.
Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (A
dismissal with prejudice is warranted upon determining
"that 'the allegation of other facts consistent with
the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the
deficiency.'") (quoting Jarrell v. United States
Postal Serv., 753 F.2d 1088, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1985)
(other citation omitted)). A separate order accompanies this
 Because this Court has not
independently evaluated the prior dismissals in Georgia to
determine whether they qualify as strikes under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g), it cannot bar plaintiff from proceeding
in forma pauperis in this case. See Fourstar v.
Garden City Grp., Inc.,875 F.3d 1147, 1153 (D.C. Cir.
2017) ("[A] prisoner may be barred from proceeding
in forma pauperis only if the later district court
independently determines that the prisoner has brought ...