Full Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMY JO MOYER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 26-02115 (UNA) ) ) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a form Complaint and Request for Injunction and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP application and dismisses the complaint. Plaintiff, a resident of Washington, D.C., sues the United States, several United States agencies, and the Trump Administration. The Statement of Claim section of the complaint is unclear and sweeping. Plaintiff asserts, among other things, that the events giving rise to her claims occurred in Texas, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C., apparently where she has “filed with the courts for relief, remediation and recompense” but has “never received protection order, restraining orders, stay- away orders, TRO and injunctions.” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff alleges that the United States Government “chose to steal property that was allegedly mine, yet that may be fraud” and “agreed to allow the two Hannah Kaylie Moyers to lead a[n] army of terrorists using the human trafficking rings of prostitutes to kill their ‘johns’ globally who have assets and property they wanted to control by claiming I own their property from torture and abuse at night when I am drugged amnesic.” Id. The allegations continue in this perplexing manner. See, e.g., id. (alleging the “two Hannah Kaylie Moyers approached the extinct Mafia in 2019 to create a terrorist regime killing the majority of the rich, powerful and famous to steal their assets with this fraud” and the implantation of “medical devices” and “unwanted drugs” into Plaintiff’s body that has left “scars all over my body, gnarled bones,” and “constant pain”). Complaints, as here, lacking “an arguable basis either in law or in fact,” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and “postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind,” Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981), are frivolous actions subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order. _________/s/___________ AMIT P. MEHTA Date: August 12, 2026 United States District Judge 2