Skrobanovic v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VLADIMIR SKROBANOVIC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-02346 (UNA) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint (“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 discussed below, dismisses this case without prejudice. Plaintiff sues the United States. See Compl. at 1; Compl. Memo, ECF No. 1-1, at 1. He alleges that the Secret Service and other bad actors in the federal government have conspired to infiltrate and tamper with his body, brain, face, businesses, bank accounts, and email accounts, through hacking and by use of animals and a starship. See Compl. Memo at 2–3. He demands $10 million in damages. See id. at 2. “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 here, Plaintiff’s Complaint falls squarely into this category. This 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 v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307–08 (D.C. Cir. 1981); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), because it cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over such frivolous claims, see Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (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,” including where the plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain origins.”). For these reasons, the Complaint, ECF No. 1, and this case, are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Pro Se Electronic Noticing Form, ECF No. 4, is denied as moot. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. TREVOR N. McFADDEN Date: October 14, 2026 United States District Judge