Ah, America. Where anybody can, at least in theory, file a complaint against anybody. We've had more than a few that elicit deeper boggling than this but.... yeah.
In case you didn't get the literary reference in the ruling, the "Devil And Daniel Webster" is a classic though particularly American short story, hardly read by anyone outside the US. The English-to-Legalese summarized translation is a nice bit of 'meta' humor in here.
This kind of foam spraying off the edge of lunatic fringe rarely reaches actual court, usually because the would-be litigants can't find attorneys who'll take a case that has no chance of success. Usually they can't afford one. Especially given that poverty, though usually the outcome of poor planning or just plain bad luck, is also frequently found as a symptom of untreated mental illness. And, in true tragic fashion, given the difficulty of affording medical care in the US, often one of the reasons it remains untreated.
The US system provides the assistance of the district attorney to those who can't afford a lawyer as defendant in a criminal trial - but this is civil law, and with civil law you're on your own.
Affording an attorney is not a factor for that minority who have discovered that they can file pro se - which means everyone has the right to represent themselves rather than engaging an attorney. But even pro se cases usually don't reach court because, like this one, there are basic errors in filing that prevent them from going forward. The judge is right here: Jurisdiction and Process Service are in fact a problem, even if we assume as the litigant does that the defendant exists.
There are days of engaging reading - alternating between entertaining and tragic - in the records of pro se cases in the US. Wild conspiracy theories of paranoids, suits against the producers of baking soda claiming that the product ought to come with a warning that if you use it to make crack cocaine somebody might throw you in jail, and just plain heartbreaking motions suing the ghost of a dead spouse for emotional support. If they are not frivolous (in the narrow sense of being filed with insincere intent) somebody has to rule on them or at least say why not. And in most of these cases there's no reason to doubt sincerity.
Edit: If you thought Mayo vs. Satan was mindboggling, try this:
http://dev.null.org/psychoceramics/archives/1997.12/msg00054.htmlhttp://www.milk.com/wall-o-shame/conspiracy.html