Thee Holy King Messiah et al v. Thee Entire Office of the President of the United States of America Donald John Drumpf Trump et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
THEE HOLY KING MESSIAH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
THEE ENTIRE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
DONALD JOHN DRUMPF TRUMP, et
al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-00551-DKW-WRP
ORDER (1) DISMISSING
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND; AND (2) DENYING AS
MOOT APPLICATION TO
PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR
COSTS1
On December 31, 2025, Plaintiff, who refers to herself as “Thee Holy King
Messiah” and claims that her co-plaintiffs include “Yeshua Ha-Moshach, also
known as Jesus Christ,” the “Princess Queen Mother,” and “Thee Holy Saint
Shepards,” filed the present Complaint. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff concurrently filed an
application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”).2 Dkt. No. 2.
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), the Court finds these matters suitable for disposition without a
hearing.
2 The Court subjects each civil action commenced pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) to mandatory
screening and can order the dismissal of any claims it finds “frivolous, malicious, failing to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune
from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Case 1:25-cv-00551-DKW-WRP Document 4 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

- 2 -
Plaintiff’s Complaint is nonsensical and frivolous. 	Reading the Complaint
generously,3 Plaintiff alleges that the federal government has been “withholding my
pension checks for over 6 months” without cause and failed to respond to Plaintiff’s
inquiries in a timely manner. Dkt. No. 1 at 3 (pdf pagination). Plaintiff claims to be
the “shepherdess who tends to Jesus Thee Holy King Christ’s sheep until he
physically returns and takes thee [sic] true saints . . . whereby he escorts us into
paradise.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff further states that the “United States flag needs to reflect
every territory that the Caucasian white men stole from native people,” and demands
that “the flag [be] burned by Trump,” the government “give the people their land(s)
and island(s) back,” and that “whatever currencies these white men have been
ripping-off . . . be presented to the heads of state with great fanfare.” 	Id. Plaintiff
further requests “all the gold bars . . . in Fort Knox,” the “entire Sotheby’s luxury
home inventory,” a “fleet of Rolls-Royce,” “all the ACME businesses,” and for the
national debt to be “deposited into my First Hawaiian Bank.” Id. at 3.
The Complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiff’s Complaint offers virtually no
allegations—it merely demands various impossible forms of relief. 	What few
allegations Plaintiff does provide are incomprehensible, even if construed liberally.
3 The Court liberally construes a pro se Complaint. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th
Cir. 1987). However, the Court cannot act as counsel for a pro se litigant, such as by supplying
the essential elements of a claim. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents
of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
Case 1:25-cv-00551-DKW-WRP Document 4 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

- 3 -
See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“Courts of Appeals have
recognized § 1915(d)’s term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not
only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegations not
supported by any facts.”). 	Furthermore, Plaintiff states that the Court has federal-
question jurisdiction over this action, see Dkt. No. 1 at 2, but fails to identify any
federal statute or provision of the Constitution at issue.
In short, the Complaint is devoid of any factual or legal basis and must be
dismissed. 	See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1).
However, “[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect . . .
a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an
opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.” 	Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66
F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977–
978 (9th Cir. 2013). Although the Court is doubtful that Plaintiff can cure the above-
mentioned deficiencies in her pleading, it is required to DISMISS the Complaint
without prejudice and with leave to amend. 	Plaintiff may have until February 3,
2026 to file an amended complaint consistent with a litigant’s ethical obligations
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b). The Court cautions Plaintiff that failure to file a timely
amended complaint, including identification of the jurisdictional basis for this
action, will result in dismissal without further notice.
The IFP Application, Dkt. No. 2, is DENIED AS MOOT.
Case 1:25-cv-00551-DKW-WRP Document 4 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

- 4 -
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 20, 2026 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
___________________________
Derrick K. Watson
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00551-DKW-WRP Document 4 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 4
PageID.<pageID>