Troy v. United States ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARCUS TROY REUM, :
:
Plaintiff, :
v. : Civil Action No. 23-1007 (UNA)
:
:
UNITED STATES, et al., :
:
Defendants. :
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The Court will grant
the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the complaint and this civil action without
prejudice.
The complaint is a confused and disorganized assortment of purported legal claims and
outlandish demands for relief. Among other topics, plaintiff discusses divorce and child custody
proceedings in a Washington State court, see Compl. at 6 (page numbers designated by
CM/ECF), bigamy and fraud, see id., unfavorable rulings in civil actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington, see id. at 7-8, confiscation of
plaintiff’s firearms, see id. at 9, and plaintiff’s plea agreement in a criminal matter in a State
court, see id. at 9. And among other relief, see generally id. at 11-12, plaintiff demands orders
for “a criminal referral” of two judges “for conspiring to deprive [plaintiff] of his rights, which
resulted in two kidnappings . . . in 2021, and . . . 2022,” id. at 11; “directing the Department of
State to immediately issue Diplomatic Passports to [plaintiff] and his offspring,” id. at 12;
directing United States “Marshals to arrive in numbers sufficient to arrest each KITSAP
COUNTY DISTRICT COURT agent who refuses to settle, discharge, and otherwise dismiss
1
with prejudice, ALL cases against” plaintiff, id., and to “collect [plaintiff’s] weapons from the
CITY OF GIG HARBOR and KITSAP COUNTY DISTRICT COURT,” id.; and issuing
summonses for the “KITSAP COUNTY SHERIFF and PIERCE COUNTY SHERIFF, to appear
and SHOW CAUSE why they should not be referred to answer for ‘ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT,’ for failure to perform a sworn duty when requested,” id.
“A 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 the 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). Consequently, a Court is empowered to 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
v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The instant complaint satisfies this
standard, as its factual allegations are largely nonsensical and the complaint otherwise fails to
articulate plausible legal claims. An Order is issued separately.
DATE: May 9, 2023 /s/
JIA M. COBB
United States District Judge
2