MOON v. VAN ZILE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ADRIAN DAMICO MOON, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 	26-00891 (UNA)
)
)
CAROLINE VAN ZILE, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP application and dismisses the
complaint.
Plaintiff or “daredeemer” has filed a document captioned “Petition for Anti-Stalking
Temporary Restraining Order (T.R.O.) Against Underling of Satan’s Government Caroline Van
Zile Pursuant to Federal [R]ule Civil Procedure 65(b)(1)-(4); D.C. Code Sections 22-3131 – 22-
3135; 18 U.S.C. 2261; 241; 242; 1113; 1201(A); 2381 Et. Seq.”1 ECF No. 1. A subcaption states
“Covid-19: Host, Hoax, or Holy Spirit.” Id. Suffice it to say, the complaint is rife with bizarre
claims. 	Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n or about January 9, 2026, Respondents, Defendants, and
Appellees, with vicious, evil, heinous, Hamas Domestic Terrorism criminally conspired then
Dismissed” another case in this Court “to chill ‘daredeemer’ from exercising his constitutional
rights while in his protected class.” Compl. ¶ 1 (citing Moon v. Satan, No. 25-cv-03988-TSC
(D.D.C. Jan. 9, 2026)). Plaintiff makes similar allegations of motive with regard to (1) a case in
1 	Presumably Van Zile is being sued in her capacity as Solicitor General of the District of
Columbia.
Case 1:26-cv-00891-UNA Document 3 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 2

2
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts where on February 2, 2026, “daredeemer”
was denied “his constitutional right to become a party and/or a non-party to da action,” which
“caused ‘daredeemer’ to fear for his safety and cause irreparable harm and actual damages of
$7,000,000,000.00,” id. ¶ 2, and (2) a case in an unidentified court presumably in California where
on “February 16, 17, 2026, “daredeemer” was denied the chance “to participate as a party and/or
non-party” there. 	Id. ¶ 3 (citing 2:20-cv-02291, L.A. Alliance et. al. v. County and City of Los
Angeles et al.).
Complaints, as here, lacking “an arguable basis either in law or in fact,” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and “postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind,”
Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981), are frivolous actions subject to
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate
order.
_________/s/___________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
Date: April 30, 2026 	United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00891-UNA Document 3 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 2