KIDD v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al, No. 1:2010cv00053 - Document 4 (D.D.C. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 1/8/2010. (ls, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~pURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLiMBIA Patricia Kidd, Plaintiff, v. District of Columbia et ai., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM , Civil Ac~ion No. JAN 1 2 2010 Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts 10 0053 ! OPINIO~ i This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se m~tion for a temporary restraining i i order ("TRO") accompanied by her complaint and applicati01 to proceed informa pauperis. The Court will grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny thelTRO motion and dismiss the case I I as frivolous. I Plaintiff is a resident of the District of Columbia seekfng emergency relief against "the I D.C. Court Network." TRO Motion at 5 (page number supplied). She seeks a broad order I enjoining parties ranging from the District of Columbia MaY1r to the United States Supreme i I COU'l1 from in essence making decisions adverse to her. See i~ at 4-13. Not only is the behavior I I sought to be restrained too broad to fashion an appropriate or~er, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d), but ! the motion is simply frivolous. i With regard to the complaint, plaintiff purports to suel for "malpractice," but she names as defendants high-level District of Columbia officials, judges of this Court and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, as well as "Supreme Court for DF Circuit William Rehnquist" and I I other entities and individuals with no apparent relationship tq plaintiff. The complaint consists i I of disconnected, incomprehensible statements. A complaint tay be dismissed under 28 U.S.c. I ยง 1915(e)(2) as frivolous when "there is indisputably absent ~ny factual and legal basis for the asserted wrong," Brandon v. District of Columbia Bd. of parJle, 734 F.2d 56, 59 (D.C. Cir. I ! 1984), or when it describes fantastic or delusional scenarios dr contains "fanciful factual I allegation[s]." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)1; accord Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, I 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). This complaint qualifies for such trFatment. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: January ~, 2010 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
