Moses v. Bondi et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SETH MOSES,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAM BONDI, et al.,
Defendants
Civil Action No.
25-4020-ABA
MEMORANDUM
Self-represented Plaintiff Seth Moses filed his complaint on December 8, 2025.
In his complaint, Mr. Moses alleges that his “mind and power” have been unlawfully
accessed to “power a supercomputer and new inventions,” including “the discovery of
quantum physics through a claim of [Plaintiff] that he can be presented to the public as
the world’s first superhuman.” ECF No. 1 at 37. He alleges that he realized this after
having reached “a greater extra sensory perception through decades of meditation and
psychiatric wellness practices” and “after experiencing the discovery of telepathigenis
experience while smoking a cannabis pre-roll containing a greater than standard
percentage of potency on a lunch-break at former employment Target Corporation.”
ECF No. 1 at 15. Mr. Moses states that his complaint is, in effect, a “formal statement” of
proof that he is being used for “monetary gain” for the government through human
experimentation by way of “software interconnected with [his] mind.” ECF No. 1 at 29.
In his complaint, Mr. Moses details a great number of perceived injuries in a
largely incomprehensible stream-of-consciousness style, including that his month-long
stay at an inpatient psychiatric unit is an example of organized crime, for which he is
seeking relief. ECF No. 1 at 18. Mr. Moses also alleges copyright infringement on a
Case 1:25-cv-04020-ABA Document 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 3

Reddit “highlight reel,” ECF No. 1 at 27–28, and accuses certain online game players of
“‘trolling’ in warzone.” ECF No. 1 at 24, 26. Mr. Moses asks the Court to grant various
arrest warrants for former acquaintances, classmates, and employers for a variety of
alleged crimes, including that he was “falsely imprisoned [and] raped in cold blood in
his own home by a demonic creature.” ECF No. 1 at 26, see, e.g., ECF No. 1 at 14–31. Mr.
Moses also notes that Judge Hurson described his prior dismissed complaint as
“frivolous” and “undecipherable.” ECF No. 1 at 23. Mr. Moses is additionally seeking
monetary compensation for medical treatments during his soccer career, expenses
related to his retirement, and individualized player value because of retirement, totaling
$340,000. ECF No. 1 at 9, 30. Mr. Moses filed two Motions for Leave to Proceed in
forma pauperis on December 8, 2025, ECF No. 2, and December 19, 2025, ECF No. 6.
The Court will grant the motions for in forma pauperis status and, on its own initiative,
dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, “constrained to exercise only the
authority conferred by Article III of the Constitution and affirmatively granted by
federal statute.” In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc. 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir. 1998). Federal
courts have original jurisdiction over civil cases, with some exceptions that are not
relevant here, in only two instances: (1) under federal question jurisdiction, where the
case involves an issue of federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or (2) under diversity
jurisdiction where no defendant may be a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff and
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Mr. Moses lists
federal question jurisdiction as the basis of jurisdiction in this case, seeking relief from
an extensive list of federal and state statutes, as well as Constitutional Amendments and
various international law. ECF No. 1 at 10–13.
Case 1:25-cv-04020-ABA Document 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 3

The Court is mindful of its obligation to liberally construe the pleadings of self-
represented litigants. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). But liberal
construction does not mean that this Court may ignore a clear failure to allege facts that
set forth a plausible claim. Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir.
1990). “[F]rivilous complaints are subject to dismissal pursuant to the inherent
authority of the court, even when the filing fee has been paid.” Chong Su Yi v. Soc. Sec.
Admin., 554 F. App’x 247, 248 (4th Cir. 2014). And “because a court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over an obviously frivolous complaint, dismissal prior to service of
process is permitted.” Id. A complaint is frivolous if it is “based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory, but also . . . [when its] factual contentions are clearly baseless”
such as those “describing fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989) (describing frivolousness under now 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) in the
context of self-represented prisoners). Even reading the complaint with deference to Mr.
Moses, the Court has failed to find any non-frivolous plausible basis for any cause of
action. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed.
A separate order follows.
Date: February 6, 2026 	________/s/________________
Adam B. Abelson
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-04020-ABA Document 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 3