DEAN v. JOHNSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ALEXANDRA-MARIE DEAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIKE JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25-4361 (UNA)
Memorandum Opinion
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action against Speaker of the U.S. House of
Representatives Mike Johnson and 130 state and federal judges and justices, alleging they are
engaged in a criminal enterprise that traffics and abuses children. ECF No. 1. She has also filed a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. For the reasons below, the court grants
the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismisses the complaint without prejudice for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.
A court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 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 unsubstantial 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)); see
also Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (collecting cases dismissed “for
Case 1:25-cv-04361-UNA Document 3 Filed 04/16/26 Page 1 of 2

2
patent insubstantiality,” including where the plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of
surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain origins”).
Here, the complaint’s allegations are patently insubstantial and deprive the court of
jurisdiction to hear the case. For example, the complaint alleges 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. It further
alleges that Defendants’ “enterprise . . . orchestrat[es] mass trafficking that constitutes a genocide
of children on a global scale.” Id. at 44. According to the complaint, 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. The
complaint alleges that “[b]eyond trafficking, the enterprise perpetuated acts of cannibalism and
other grotesque abuses shielded by the absence of explicit federal prohibition on cannibalism and
further protected by wealth, secrecy, and corrupt judicial mechanisms.” Id. at 46. These allegations
are similar to those that courts have routinely dismissed for “patent insubstantiality.” Tooley, 586
F.3d at 1010 (collecting cases).
For these reasons, the court grants the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2,
and dismisses the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A separate
order accompanies this memorandum opinion.
/s/
AMIR H. ALI
United States District Judge
Date: April 16, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-04361-UNA Document 3 Filed 04/16/26 Page 2 of 2