GEE v. JOHNSON et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
KASSIDY-JO GEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIKE JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25 - 4406 (UNA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Kassidy-Jo Gee, proceeding pro se, brings this action against Speaker of the
U.S. House of Representatives Mike Johnson and 130 sitting state and federal judges and justices,
alleging they are engaged in a criminal enterprise that traffics, tortures, and otherwise abuses
children. ECF No. 1. She has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF
No. 2. For the following reasons the court will grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
A court may dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. When a
complaint is “‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision,” the
court lacks authority to hear the case and dismissal is warranted. Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330
(D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6 (1989)). That standard
includes cases that are “so attenuated and [in]substantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.”
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (quoting Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport,
193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904)). Generally, sua sponte dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
is “reserved for complaints resting on truly fanciful factual allegations,” while motions to dismiss
Case 1:25-cv-04406-UNA Document 4 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 3

2
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) “cull legally deficient complaints.” Best, 39 F.3d
at 331 n.5.
Here, Ms. Gee’s allegations are patently insubstantial and deprive the court of jurisdiction
to hear her case. For example, she claims that Chief Justice John Roberts “[e]nrich[es] himself
through the commodification of children” by participating in “judicial kidnapping” and a
“conspiracy to maintain a racketeering enterprise.” ECF No. 1, at 39.1 She also asserts that
Defendants’ “enterprise . . . orchestra[es] mass trafficking that constitutes a genocide of children
on a global scale.” Id. at 44. Ms. Gee contends that this “Judicial Racket Enterprise” has
“systematically weaponized Title IV funding, guardianship proceedings and custody litigation to
traffic children, launder federal funds, and silence dissent.” Id. at 53. “Beyond trafficking, the
enterprise perpetuated acts of cannibalism and other grotesque abuses shielded by the absence of
explicit federal prohibition of cannibalism and further protected by wealth, secrecy, and corrupt
judicial mechanisms.” Id. at 46. Based on these allegations, Ms. Gee seeks various forms of relief,
including “RICO forfeiture of all profits and assets obtained through the [criminal enterprise],”
“[d]issolution of Title IV trafficking incentives,” and more than $10 trillion in damages—
representing the net worth of several large financial institutions that have allegedly profited from
Defendants’ scheme. Id. at 72-73. Ms. Gee’s allegations of a widespread and global criminal
conspiracy are similar to those that courts have routinely dismissed for “patent insubstantiality.”
Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (collecting cases).
1 The citations to ECF No. 1 refer to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of each page
rather than any internal pagination.
Case 1:25-cv-04406-UNA Document 4 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 3

3
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant Ms. Gee’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, ECF No. 2, and dismiss this case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. A contemporaneous order will issue.
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
United States District Judge
Date: February 17, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-04406-UNA Document 4 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 3