MOON v. HENDERSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ADRIAN DAMICO MOON, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 	26-00892 (UNA)
)
)
KAREN L. HENDERSON, 	)
)
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 Restr[ai]ning Order (T.R.O.) Against Underlings of Satan’s Government Karen L.
Henderson Pursuant to Federal Rules 65(b)(1-4); D.C. Code sections 541; 22-3131 – 22-3135; 18
U.S.C. 2261; 241; 242; 113; 1201(a); 2381 Et. Seq.”1 ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that on March
5, 2026, “Respondents, Defendants, and Appellees, with evil, vicious, heinous, Hamas Domestic
Terrorism criminally conspired then dismissed case entitled Moon vs Satan et. al. case no. 25-5702
without adjudicating any of da pending motions causing daredeemer to fear for his safety.” Compl.
¶ 1, ECF No. 1. “On or about March 1, 2026” those same unidentified individuals with the same
“evil” motives “failed to turn themselves over into da custody of da Metropolitan District of
Columbia Police Department to await arraignment and Bond hearings for their crimes[.]” Id. ¶ 2.
1 	The named defendant is presumed to be Judge Karen L. Henderson of the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Case 1:26-cv-00892-UNA Document 3 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Also on January 9, 2026, those “Respondents, Defendants, and Appellees . . . criminally conspired
then Dismissed [Plaintiff’s] case . . . to chill ‘daredeemer’ from exercising his constitutional rights
while in his protected class.” Compl. ¶ 3 (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 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. ¶ 4, 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 and thus suffered the same harm. Id. ¶ 5 (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-00892-UNA Document 3 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 2