MYERS v. GL SOLUTIONS GMBH & CO. KG, No. 1:2023cv03619 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on 12/28/2023. (zsl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) HENRY MYERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-3619 (UNA) ) GL SOLUTIONS GmbH & Co. KG, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________________ ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on review of pro se plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and his civil complaint. The IFP application is GRANTED and, for the reasons stated below, the Complaint and this civil action are DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff, who uses the names “Henry Barhite,” “Henry Myers,” and “Henry Christ,” Compl. at 1, declares himself the “owner” of “the Henry Christ trademark,” id. at 4. Relying on assorted treaties and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, see id. at 3, plaintiff in nonsensical fashion, deems himself “the Delegate of Christ,” id. at 4, and demands “[a]ll money received for all goods sold under the branding Henry Christ” and “for the ownership of the Henry Christ trademark,” id. “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). The few factual allegations set forth in the complaint are largely incoherent, irrational or wholly incredible, rendering the complaint subject to dismissal as frivolous. 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[.]”). The Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over such a frivolous complaint. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 53637 (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”). This Complaint is therefore dismissed without prejudice. An Order is issued separately. DATE: December 28, 2023 BERYL A. HOWELL United States District Judge
]]>
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.
