CLAY v. HEGSETH et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CARLEOUS DARRELL CLAY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 25-3726 (UNA)
)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on initial review of plaintiff’s application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and motion to appoint
counsel, ECF No. 3. The Court will grant the application, dismiss the complaint without
prejudice, and deny the motion without prejudice as moot.
“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)); Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir.
2009) (examining cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality,” including where plaintiff
allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain
Case 1:25-cv-03726-UNA Document 7 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 2

2
origins.”). Consequently, a Court is obligated to 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).
Plaintiff’s fanciful assertions, among which are allegations that we all are “secretly under
Espionage, Cybersecurities, illegal spy hackings, security attacks, through a transhuman gray
being and a brain computer interface cyborge, that was genetically engineered and uploaded . . .
through [plaintiff’s] body and brain,” Compl. at 9, are, indeed, frivolous. The Court cannot
exercise jurisdiction over a frivolous complaint. A separate order will issue.
TREVOR N. McFADDEN
Date: November 24, 2025 United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-03726-UNA Document 7 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 2