IRVIN v. CANTWELL

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:26-cv-01029-UNA Document3 _ Filed 06/01/26 Pagelof3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MATTHEW IRVIN, )
Plaintiff,
V. Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-01029 (UNA)
MARIA CANTWELL,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff's pro se Complaint
(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The
Court grants the in forma pauperis application and, for the reasons explained below, dismisses the
case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(G), by which the Court is required to dismiss a case “at any
time” it determines that the action is frivolous.

Relevant here, “[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 a “complaint plainly abusive of the judicial process is properly typed malicious,” Crisafi v.
Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues a United States Senator, see Compl.
at 1—2, but fails to provide an address for the Defendant, in contravention of D.C. Local Civil Rule
5.1(C)(1). The allegations themselves fare no better. Plaintiff cites, without explanation, to the

Anti-Terrorism Act, see id. at 3, and then states cryptically, “active stay away or restraining order

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

of the noted defendants, arrest of murders of deceased victims investigations of all statement of
claim,” id. at 4. He demands $1 million in damages. See id.
Plaintiff’s allegations, to the extent they can even be understood, are frivolous, 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 the plaintiff
allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain
origins.”). Indeed, 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, 655 F.2d at
1307–08. Plaintiff’s allegations fall squarely into this category.
For all of these reasons, this matter is dismissed without prejudice. An Order consistent
with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
DATE: June 1, 2026 	/s/ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01029-UNA Document 3 Filed 06/01/26 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:26-cv-01029-UNA Document 3 Filed 06/01/26
Page 3 of 3