WILLIAMS v. PATEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ALFREDA DENISE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
KASH PATEL,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 25 - 4280 (UNA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the court is Plaintiff Alfreda Denis Williams’s complaint, ECF No. 1, and motion
to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The court will grant the application to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismiss the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
“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). 28 U.S.C. § 1915 requires a court to dismiss a case “at any time if the court determines
that . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous.” Consequently, the court is obligated to dismiss a
Case 1:25-cv-04280-UNA Document 3 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 2

2
complaint as frivolous when, as here, “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).
Ms. Williams claims to be a “Federal Special Agent” named “America D. Trump,” and she
is “requesting” that the court remove Kash Patel from his role as Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation. ECF No. 1, at 6. She alleges, among other things, that Director Patel has “close
involvement” in a “Plot to Rape or Kill a[] White American Leader/Republican/Navy Veteran/Law
Enforcement Officer Elite Federal Special Agent AI/Royalty” (this appears to be Ms. Williams,
herself), as well as plots to inject her with cancer and computer chips and have her stalked. Id. at
7-8.
The court concludes that Ms. Williams’s claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact
because her core assertions are wholly irrational. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. The court will
accordingly grant her motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and dismiss her complaint,
ECF No. 1, without prejudice.
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
United States District Judge
Date: February 9, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-04280-UNA Document 3 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 2