WILTZ v. TRUMP et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ROBERT GEORGE WILTZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25 - 3965 (UNA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Robert George Wiltz, proceeding pro se, brings this action against
President Donald Trump, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”), and the
National Security Agency. ECF No. 1. He has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. ECF No. 2. For the following reasons the court will grant the motion to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint and the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
A court may dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. When a
complaint is “‘patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for decision,” the
court lacks authority to hear the case and dismissal is warranted. Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330
(D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6 (1989)). That standard
includes cases that are “so attenuated and [in]substantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.”
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (quoting Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport,
193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904)). Generally, sua sponte dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
is “reserved for complaints resting on truly fanciful factual allegations,” while motions to dismiss
Case 1:25-cv-03965-UNA Document 4 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 2

2
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) “cull legally deficient complaints.” Best, 39 F.3d
at 331 n.5.
Here, Mr. Wiltz’s allegations are patently insubstantial and deprive the court of jurisdiction
to hear his case. Mr. Wiltz alleges that the “United States Federal Government has been utilizing
complicated technological surveillance equipment as seen in patents dating back to 1981 . . . to
steal [his] company’s trade secrets, intellectual property, and directives.” ECF No. 1, at 4.1 As
relief, he asks for his “nonprofit to be made a constituent to the CIA in order to find and remediate
the loss of [his] intellectual property and trade secrets,” for the court to provide a “home . . . from
Sotheby’s,” a “Mercedes C350 of [his] choosing,” a “wardrobe of high quality,” the “furniture of
[his] choosing”—along with “all logistics provided, more as requested”—and $6.8 billion in
restitution. Id. Mr. Wiltz’s allegations of a widespread “campaign of surveillance” over more
than four decades are similar to those that courts have routinely dismissed for “patent
insubstantiality.” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (collecting cases).
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant Mr. Wiltz’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, ECF No. 2, and dismiss the complaint, ECF No. 1, and the case without prejudice for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A contemporaneous order will issue.
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
United States District Judge
Date: February 11, 2026
1 The citations to ECF No. 1 refer to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of each page
rather than any internal pagination.
Case 1:25-cv-03965-UNA Document 4 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 2