OLIVER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
EDDIE VAN OLIVER, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25 - 4063 (UNA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Eddie Van Oliver, III’s application to proceed
in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. For the reasons explained below,
the court will grant the application 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))); see Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010
(D.C. Cir. 2009) (“A complaint may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds when it ‘is “patently
Case 1:25-cv-04063-UNA Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 3

2
insubstantial,” presenting no federal question suitable for decision.’” (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39
F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994))). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court must dismiss a case “at any
time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous.” Accordingly, the court
is obligated to dismiss a 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. Van Oliver’s complaint contains incoherent and nonsensical allegations. For example,
he states, “Confederate flag stole a Marine and need to get her back to the marine core so she can
work under the President of the United States of America. Illegal civil war drone by confederacy
instigating China[’]s Covid-19.” ECF No. 1, at 4. Mr. Van Oliver further alleges that there are
“seve[ra]l people in [his] nuero stream as well as a boweling alley with kkk license plates.” Id.
As relief, he requests that “Kim Yarboro . . . get back to work at United States Marine Core
Systems Command” or “be escorted back to Ohio if she cannot work [there],” a “National Foot
League antitrust violation remedy of $100,000,000,” and “Loft Apartments Confederate gorilla
meeting $50,000 remedy.” Id. And it is unclear how the attachments to Mr. Van Oliver’s
complaint—such as emails from Harvard Business School, court documents from other
jurisdictions, bank records, news articles, and photographs, see ECF No. 1-1, at 3-139—relate to
his suit. These claims thus lack an arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325.
Accordingly, the court will grant Mr. Van Oliver’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis, ECF No. 2, and dismiss the complaint without prejudice, ECF No. 1. A
contemporaneous order will issue.
Case 1:25-cv-04063-UNA Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 3

3
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
United States District Judge
Date: February 10, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-04063-UNA Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 3