PATEL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al, No. 1:2024cv00308 - Document 4 (D.D.C. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 03/15/2024. (zsl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
PATEL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RAJ K. PATEL, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES et al, Defendants. Civil Action No. 24-00308 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, and application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff, a resident of Indianapolis, Indiana, brings this suit against the United States, President Joe Biden, United States Secretary of State, and the United States Chief of Protocol, Compl. Caption, and demands “the sum of $40,000,000[,]” Compl. ¶ 4. Plaintiff alleges: “This is enforcement of the peace treaty of the Glorious Revolution and our National Character.” Id. ¶ 3. He asserts that “[m]any communities have bowing and curtesy . . . rituals to their parents and elders” and that “said greetings are disrespectful to protocol of the United States Constitution.” Id. ¶¶ 1-2. Plaintiff further alleges that “[l]awyers and state figures should not follow” such rituals and “[l]awful student government presidents . . . are exempt but may receive the greetings.” Id. ¶ 2. In “Claim 1 (Due Process)” and “Claim 2 (Invasion of Federal Privacy),” he claims that Defendants “are unconstitutionally allowing these anti-statist religious practices to come to an end” and “[d]ue process requires that the Defendants build cultural capacity of Dockets.Justia.com bringing such greeting practices to an end.” Id. ¶¶ 5-6. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that the greeting “practices have caused [him] psychological pain and social burden and comfort.” Id. ¶ 7. Complaints, as here, that are supported wholly by allegations lacking “an arguable basis either in law or in fact” may be dismissed as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The term frivolous “embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Id. The Court will, accordingly, dismiss the instant complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), which requires immediate dismissal of a frivolous action. A separate order will issue. _________/s/_____________ RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge Date: March 15, 2024 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.
