PRIEST v. PRIEST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
STEVEN PAUL PRIEST, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 26-cv-00096 (APM)
)
STEVEN PAUL PRIEST, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Steven Paul Priest, self-designated as “holder In Due Course” and “Foreign
Sovereign,” brings claims against apparently himself as a “non-juridic, Assumption, is Trust Res,
‘Public Office.’” Compl., ECF No. 1 [hereinafter Compl.], at 1. Because Plaintiff fails to raise a
substantial federal question and his claims are patently frivolous, the court sua sponte dismisses
the Complaint and this action.
It is well settled that “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” or
“obviously frivolous.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted). A complaint will be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) when it is “‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision.”
Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327
n.6 (1989)). Claims are insubstantial and frivolous if they are “essentially fictitious” because they
advance, for example, “bizarre conspiracy theories.” Best, 39 F.3d at 330 (internal quotation marks
omitted). In such cases, a district court may dismiss the case sua sponte. See Lewis v. Bayh, 577
Case 1:26-cv-00096-APM Document 2 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 2

2
F. Supp. 2d 47, 54 (D.D.C. 2008) (noting that “a district court has the power to dismiss a case sua
sponte if it is frivolous”).
It is neither clear what claims Plaintiff brings nor what relief he seeks. 	The Complaint
alludes to “[c]ompelled association of public office outside the District of Columbia” and that
Plaintiff is “taking back [his] property, and then promptly, intend[s] to exit the Federal Enclave.”
Compl. at 2. Plaintiff fails to explain what “[c]ompelled association of public office” is or what
that has to do with property. Id. Plaintiff appears to request “To Enjoin, STATE actors, from TM
Infringement, violating public to use a similar named tradename, without consent, under duress,
by misrepresentation & fraud upon purchasing public, as to qualify of my property, that differs
from anyone else but me!” Id. (emphasis in original). Again, Plaintiff does not explain what “TM
Infringement” is nor does he explain the rest of the sentence, which does not express a discernable
request for relief. The Complaint does not present a federal question suitable for relief and thus
must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The court is mindful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent
standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. 	See Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 	But Plaintiff’s claims are “patently insubstantial” and present “no
federal question suitable for decision.” Best, 39 F.3d at 330 (citations omitted). Accordingly, the
court dismisses the Complaint and this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A separate final, appealable order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Dated: January 21, 2026 	Amit P. Mehta
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00096-APM Document 2 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 2