WEIDRICK v. BIDEN et al, No. 1:2021cv00416 - Document 4 (D.D.C. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 3/4/2021. (adh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
WEIDRICK v. BIDEN et al Doc. 4 FILED 3/4/2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MARY JO WEIDRICK, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia Civil Action No. 21-416 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a Complaint against President Joe Biden and the United States Congress and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court will grant the application and dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (requiring dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint is frivolous). Plaintiff brings this action primarily “to allow” her “to immediately confer with her attorney of 3-4 years, Mark J. Geragos, and to immediately be deposed by the Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., for purposes of testifying before the Grand Jury to indict, arrest, try; and imprison Defendants immediately.” Compl. at 4. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that “Defendants, named and unnamed, have engaged in terrorist activity 24/7 for over 31 years and continue to do so[.]” Id. Such activities include “violently raping” plaintiff’s “brain 24/7 with mind-reading equipment,” “slandering” her, “slowly trying to kill her[,] and simultaneously making a joke of Plaintiff and this terrorism of her.” Id. In addition, plaintiff alleges far-reaching “smear campaigns against her” by national and local media, “seemingly all federal intelligence agencies,” state and local officials, and social media. Id. at 5. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Complaints premised on fantastic or delusional scenarios or supported wholly by allegations lacking “an arguable basis either in law or in fact” are subject to dismissal as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible[.]”); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (a court may dismiss claims that are “essentially fictitious”-- for example, where they suggest “bizarre conspiracy theories . . . [or] fantastic government manipulations of their will or mind”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“A court may dismiss as frivolous complaints . . . postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind.”). The instant complaint satisfies this standard and therefore will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. _________s/_____________ AMIT P. MEHTA United States District Judge Date: March 4, 2021 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.
