ACKERMAN, IV v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LESTER P. ACKERMAN, IV
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant
Civil Action No. 25 - 4385 (LLA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the court is Plaintiff Lester P. Ackerman IV’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-04385-UNA Document 4 Filed 01/12/26 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).
Mr. Ackerman claims that the United States “has caused hate and discrimination” toward
him by “using the term molester in the crimnal [sic] justice system to discribe [sic] a crime”
because the word “molester” rhymes with Mr. Ackerman’s first name, Lester. ECF No. 1, at 4.
Among other relief, Mr. Ackerman demands an award of $37 trillion to be placed in the “Lester
Trust for people affected by . . . criminal negligence” and a “change [in] the vocabulay [sic] of the
justice system.” Id. at 4-5.
The court concludes that Mr. Ackerman’s claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact
because his core assertions are wholly irrational. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. The court will
accordingly grant Mr. Ackerman’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and dismiss
his complaint, ECF No. 1, without prejudice.
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
United States District Judge
Date: January 12, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-04385-UNA Document 4 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 2