Sun v. Obama ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
XIU JIAN SUN, Spiritual Adam,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 21-1442 (JDB)
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Xiu Jian Sun, identifying as “the spiritual Adam” and as a representative of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, filed this pro se action against “Barack Obama
(Herod)” on April 12, 2021. Compl. [ECF No. 1]. Because plaintiff’s complaint does not state
the grounds upon which this Court’s jurisdiction depends or a claim upon which relief can be
granted, the Court will dismiss this case sua sponte.
As a prefatory matter, the Court notes that plaintiff is a serial complainant who has filed
numerous suits in this and other state and federal courts. See, e.g., Mem. Op. & Order Granting
Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss at 2, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Lawrence, No. 19-cv-
2886 (RC) (D.D.C. Apr. 20, 2020) [ECF No. 7], aff’d sub nom. Sun v. Lawrence, No. 20-5112,
2020 WL 6600947 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 20, 2020) (per curiam) (collecting cases and dismissing because
“Sun’s complaint is unintelligible”); Sun v. Secret Gang Org.: Obama Barack-Dog, No. 17-cv-
1861 (JDB), 2018 WL 4567164, at *1–3 (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 2018), aff’d sub nom. Sun v. Obama,
No. 18-5313, 2019 WL 1239812 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 5, 2019) (per curiam) (noting that Sun had filed
at least eight similar complaints and dismissing for failure to state a claim).
1
In the instant case, plaintiff’s complaint “alleges” that “[t]he Lord god of hosts Jehovah,
sent messenger through the angel answers to the defendant Barack Obama – Herod said: ‘you will
be dying in your sin.’” Compl. ¶ 1. Then, plaintiff quotes from “The Doctrine and Covenants,” id.
¶ 2, and requests “[t]rial with god’s law” and a “jury to prevent insult and unfair behavior,” id. ¶ 4,
as well as “a Mandarin Chinese court interpreter,” id. ¶ 5.
Although complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se litigants
must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239
(D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint 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; and (3) a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Moreover, under Rule 12(b)(1) courts may dismiss complaints which are “‘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)). Claims are
insubstantial if they are “essentially fictitious.” Best, 39 F.3d at 330 (quoting Hagans v. Lavine,
415 U.S. 528, 537–38 (1974)). Courts may also dismiss complaints sua sponte for failure to state
a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) “whenever ‘the plaintiff cannot possibly win relief.’” Id. at 331
(quoting Baker v. Director, U.S. Parole Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (per
curiam)).
The Court finds that the complaint here is incomprehensible. Even after a liberal
construction and careful examination of plaintiff’s complaint, this Court is unable to identify any
colorable claims. The complaint does not state the grounds upon which this Court’s jurisdiction
depends, a cognizable claim showing plaintiff’s entitlement to relief, or a demand for relief. See
2
Urban v. United Nations, 768 F.2d 1497, 1499 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“[T]he court is unable to hazard
even the most elementary guess as to the relief [plaintiff] seeks, at a loss to decipher the nature of
the claims pursued, and unable to discern a plausible nexus between the complaint and the named
defendants.”). As the Eastern District of New York noted in Xiu Jian Sun v. New York Office of
the Attorney General, “th[is] plaintiff has made a practice of suing any judge, court personnel,
government official, or person with whom he has ever interacted. In addition, the allegations
consist entirely of religious pronouncements.” No. 17-CV-5916 (AMD)(SMG), 2017 WL
4740811, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2017). This complaint follows the same pattern. Plaintiff has
not asserted any causes of action or sought any specific relief. The complaint therefore fails to
comply with Rule 8(a) and will be dismissed. Further, any claim that might be gleaned from the
complaint would be “patently insubstantial” insofar as plaintiff alleges the suit stems from a divine
messenger. Compl. ¶ 1; Best, 39 F.3d at 330 (noting that allegations of “any sort of supernatural
intervention” meet the “essentially fictitious” standard). Hence, the complaint could also be
dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) or failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6).
For these reasons, the Court will dismiss this case. A separate order has been issued on
this date.
/s/
JOHN D. BATES
United States District Judge
Dated: June 4, 2021
3