CARRINGTON v. JOHNSON et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THEODORE MACON CARRINGTON, JR.,)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02924 (UNA)
v. 	)
)
RON JOHNSON, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint
(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and his Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF
No. 2. 	The Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP Application,1 and for the reasons discussed below,
dismisses this case without prejudice.
Plaintiff, who currently civilly committed and designated to Butner Federal Medical
Center, sues an assortment of Defendants, including Congress, four U.S. Senators, two U.S.
Representatives, Mark Zuckerberg, and Samsung U.S.A. See Compl. at 1–4. He does not provide
addresses for many of the Defendants, in contravention of D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1), (g).
See id. at 3–4.
The allegations themselves fare no better. Notably, “[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)).
1 	Plaintiff attests that he is currently civilly committed, see Compl. at 2.; therefore, the Court does not require
a certified copy of his trust fund account statement, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), because that provision of the PLRA
is inapplicable to him, see Vandivere v. Lynch, No. 16-cv-1594, 2016 WL 11716441, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 30, 2016)
(citing cases); Ardaneh v. U.S. Gov’t, No. 19-1786, 2020 WL 7316123, at *3 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2020) (same) (citing
cases), aff’d, 848 Fed. Appx. 7 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (per curiam).
Case 1:25-cv-02924-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 3

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 instant Complaint falls squarely into this category.
Plaintiff alleges that, in 2015, he “became aware of a problem with the virtual reality
Google headsets made by Facebook/Meta/Oculus Rift, and Samsung USA.” 	Compl. at 5. 	He
alleges that these headsets emit “very dangerous levels of radiation” and “literally fry the eyeballs
of the user.” Id. He contends that, in an effort to protect children, he has contacted members of
Congress and prison psychologists to expose the manufacturers of the headsets, but that he has
been ignored due to a conspiracy borne out of “money and power,” and that he has been
“threatened repeatedly to keep [his] mouth shut.” See id. at 6, 10–11. He “demands $500 million
from each Senator and House Representative each,” $10 billion from Congress, $150 billion from
Mark Zuckerberg, and “75 billion from Meta and Samsung U.S.A. each.” Id. at 11.
The Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s frivolous Complaint.
See 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) (examining cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality,”
including where the plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and
harassment deriving from uncertain origins.”). Indeed, as here, a court is obligated to dismiss a
complaint as frivolous “when 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).
Case 1:25-cv-02924-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 3

For these reasons, the Complaint, ECF No. 1, and this case, are dismissed without
prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
TREVOR N. McFADDEN
Date: December 1, 2025 	United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02924-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/02/25 Page 3 of 3