KIM v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE
1:25-cv-00196
| D.D.C. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Seungjin Kim, filed a pro se complaint against the U.S. Department of State, seeking to proceed in forma pauperis.
- The complaint included extraordinary allegations, such as being named a Supreme Court Justice and entitlement to a diplomatic passport and $100 billion, allegedly per Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's will.
- Plaintiff also requested the State Department to perform ceremonial acts for Justice Ginsburg and to resolve issues related to the Embassy of the Republic of Korea.
- The court conducted an initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) to determine if the complaint was frivolous or failed to state a claim.
- A motion to amend the complaint was also pending, seeking to add or revise claims.
- Judge Amit P. Mehta issued the decision, dismissing the complaint and denying leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint stated a plausible legal claim | Kim claimed entitlement to a diplomatic passport and $100B as Supreme Court Justice per Justice Ginsburg’s will | Not specified in opinion; implied no response required | Complaint dismissed as frivolous and not plausible |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted | Sought to amend complaint to support claims | Not specified | Denied as futile due to fanciful allegations |
| Court's subject matter jurisdiction over claims | Argued claims were justiciable federal issues | Not specified | Court lacked jurisdiction due to frivolity |
| Whether complaint warranted in forma pauperis status | Sought relief to proceed without prepaying fees | Not opposed | Granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must be plausible on its face)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolous claims lack any arguable basis in law or fact)
- Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (federal courts lack jurisdiction over insubstantial claims)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (court may dismiss irrational or fanciful factual allegations)
- Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305 (dismissal for wholly fanciful claims)
- Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006 (dismissal for patent insubstantiality)