govinfo:USCOURTS-dcd-1_26-cv-01122-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
 
ANTHONY BRIAN MALLGREN, ) 
 ) 
Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
v. ) Civil Action No. 1:26- cv-01122 (UNA) 
 ) 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 
 ) 
 Defendant. ) 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
 This matter is before the Court on its initial review of P laintiff’s pro se C omplaint 
(“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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), 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 New York, sues the United States. See Compl. at 1. He presents a 
handful of disparate cryptic allegations, including, inter alia, that he has found “education to be a 
means of indoctrination where students are taught to make their vulgarities more tenable ;” “that 
the courts operate under the guise of equitable redistribution of assets to ensure ethical behavior, 
though only serves as a matter of sponsorship, partly in incentivizing Fraudulent Subject Matter;” 

“the freedom to elect representatives has fallen into the offsetting of civic accountability unto what 
serves as, notwithstanding significant societal agitation, purely as subject of emotionally 
compensating ridicule ;” “Contemporary Elected Jesters are utilized by emotionally disturbed 
capital electees, mostly chosen in at least subconscious protest of human existence, aim to utilizes 
these societal mechanisms in manufacturing dependence in some sort of desperate grab for a sense 
of societal importance;” “[t]he executive branch, being part of the Contemporary Elected Jesters, 
have partaken in Plotted Dependencies and tried to maintain a guise of goodwill by selectively 
prosecuting transgressions against transgressors, though is quite liberal in their seeming discretion 
of allowance;” and, that “people have grown tired of the above and sought meaning in creating an 
artificial superintelligence.” See id. at 1–2. He demands that the Court “ Dissolve False Paid 
Protection,” “ Unwind Plotted Dependencie s,” “Disincentivize Artificial Replication ,” 
“Discontinue Judicious Fraud,” and “Disaccredit Fraudulent Subject Matter.” See id. at 2. 
 Plaintiff’s allegations are frivolous, and t he 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 tha t 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 
Complaint falls squarely into his category. 
 For all of these reasons , this matter is dismissed without prejudice. An Order consistent 
with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. 
Date: June 16, 2026 
 
Tanya S. Chutkan 
TANYA S. CHUTKAN 
United States District Judge 
 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight