SKROBANOVIC v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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
Case 1:26-cv-02346-UNA Document 17 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 2

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
Case 1:26-cv-02346-UNA Document 17 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 2