CANDERS v. REEVES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TIJUANA L. CANDERS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	Civil Action No. 25-03889 (UNA)
v. 	)
)
DERRICK REEVES. 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
Memorandum Opinion
This matter is before the court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No.
1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. 	The court grants the in
forma 	pauperis 	application 	and 	dismisses 	the 	complaint 	as 	frivolous 	under 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii).
Plaintiff, who lists her residential address as the U.S. Library of Congress, sues an
individual who resides in Columbus, Ohio. See ECF No. 1 at 1–3. She alleges that Defendant has
committed 	various 	wrongs 	against 	her, 	including 	hacking 	her 	systems, 	surveilling 	her
whereabouts, and threatening her through “witchcraft” and in association with his network of bad
actors. See id. at 4–5. She demands $3 million in damages. Id. at 4.
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).
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
Case 1:25-cv-03889-UNA Document 4 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 2

‘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”). A court may 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). The instant complaint falls into this category.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 	A separate order
accompanies this memorandum opinion.
Date: 	April 8, 2026 	/s/______________________
AMIR H. ALI
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-03889-UNA Document 4 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 2