Summary
dismissing pro se plaintiff's complaint with prejudice because it did "not state[] a coherent claim against any of the defendants"
Summary of this case from Wilkerson v. Soc. Sec. Admin.Opinion
No. C 00-4586 CRB
March 16, 2001
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Now before the Court are a series of motions to dismiss filed by the various defendants in this case. Having considered time parties' papers and with the benefit of oral argument on March 16, 2001, the motions to dismiss are hereby GRANTED. The plaintiff's complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
BACKGROUND
The plaintiff Anita Adams brought this complaint against over twenty public and private defendants, alleging "attempted murder by mandate", theft and money laundering, the wrongful death of her mother, involuntary manslaughter, continual infringements of her constitutional rights, and harassment. Adams believes that there is some sort of conspiracy or "illegal forum" to harass and kill her. She alleges that the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), the Contra Costa County District Attorneys Office ("CCCDA"), members of the Catholic Church, and other individuals have targeted her for death and harassment.
Adams paints a picture of extreme persecution. Adams claims that FBI or CCCDA officials came into her mother's home and stole $300,000 in cash. She alleges that she was observed through two-way mirrors at the post office, at a doctor's office, and at a hospital. Adams claims that at certain times, there were huge groups of over fifty people behind the two-way mirrors, including members of her family, police officers, acquaintances from school, and former high school teachers. She alleges that people at Raley's Supermarket, Inc. ("Raley's") were spreading vicious rumors about her, including that she was a prostitute who uses drugs. She asserts that the FBI, medical response personnel, and a hospital conspired to kidnap her mother and administer incorrect medication that led to her mother's death. Adams also alleges that someone applied poison to her toilet paper on one occasion and attempted to run her over with a large commercial truck on another.
The plaintiff alleges that all of the individuals she has sued were somehow involved in "vigilante group" that conspired to kill her and otherwise ruin her life. Adams claims that all of the defendants have a vendetta against her because she is a hermaphrodite who was born black but bleached white at birth.
Adams brought suit against the following reasonably identifiable defendants: (1) Tony Vidiera, an FBI agent; (2) Michael O'Neill, a district attorney with CCCDA; (3) David Gugliemino, a district attorney with CCCDA; (4) John DeBartolo, a district attorney with CCCDA; (5) Tom Lambert, the Chief of the Oakley Police Deparment; (6) Gary Yancey, a member of the United States Department of Justice; (7) Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher; (8) Leshe O'Neil, an employee at Raley's; (9) "Eddie," a clerk at a United States Post Office; (10) Ted Tipton (or Lipton), a fireman; (11) Friar Bernidino Andrade, a friar at a Catholic Church; (12) Joann Mass, a member of a Catholic Church; (13) American Medical Response; (14) Merrithew Regional Hospital; (15) Raley's; and (16) The Ledger-Dispatch. Adams has also named the following individuals, although she does not provide any information with which to identify them: (1) Richard Cagle; (2) Pat Anderson; (3) Daniel Twohy; (4) Dr. Tremain; (5) Dr. McNabb; (6) Ronald Johnson; and (7) a person identified simply as "Woo." Many of Adams' allegations do not appear m the complaint itself, but instead appear in ancillary documents appended to the complaint or filed at a later date.
The identities listed here are based purely on Adams' allegations. On occasion, as discussed infra, the people Adams has identified do not appear to exist.
Presumably, Anderson is affiliated with the Oakley Police Department, as he filed a joint motion to dismiss with Lambert.
Adams has made the following allegations against each of the defendants:
1. Tony Vidiera
Adams claims that Vidiera is an FBI agent involved in the kidnaping of Adams' mother. See Compl. at 2. Adams allegedly heard Vidiera state: "We tried to kill her, we killed her mother, we robbed her of her inheritance, what else can we do to her[?]" Id. at 1. Adams claims that Vidiera allowed the kidnaping, abuse, and "involuntary manslaughter" of Adams' mother. See id. at 3. Vidiera was also allegedly involved in a "forum" that decided to kill Adams. See Plaintiff's "Attempted Murder" Exhibit ("AME"). Finally, Adams asserts that Vidiera ordered others to beat and kill Adams. See Plaintiff's Ex. I. The attorney for Raley's has discovered that there is no FBI agent by the name of Tony Vidiera. See Steven McDonald Aff. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss ("McDonald Aff.").
2. Michael O'Neill
Adams alleges that Michael O'Neill is a district attorney who is somehow connected with Raley's and who used Raley's facilities to "intimidate" Adams. Adams claims that O'Neill is the father of Leslie O'Neil, another defendant who is employed by Raley's. See Plaintiff's "Status Conference Statement" ("SCS"); Plaintiff's "Amendment to Complaint." The attorney for Raley's has discovered that there is no district attorney employed by CCCDA by the name of Michael O'Neill. See McDonald Aff.
3. David Gugliemino
Adams alleges that Gugliemino is a district attorney who was involved along with the FBI in the attempt to kill the plaintiff with a commercial truck. See AME.
4. John DeBartolo
Adams alleges that DeBartolo is a district attorney involved in the conspiracy to kill her. See Ex. I. She also accuses DeBartolo of peeping on her, illegal entry, and slander. See id.
5. Tom Lambert, Chief of Oakley Police
Adams does not make any specific allegations against Lambert, but does claim that he violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Sce SCS.
6. Gary Yancey
Adams alleges that Yancey is a member of the Justice Department who received correspondence from the plaintiff. See AME.
7. Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher
Adams alleges that Congresswomen Tauscher accepted donations of money that belonged to Adams. See SCS.
8. Leslie O'Neil
Adams alleges that Leslie O'Neil gossiped about her, intimidated her, and was involved in the conspiracy to kill her. See SCS. Leslie O'Neil declares she has never had any contact with Adams other than to offer her assistance at the check-out station in the Oakley Raley's store. See Leslie O'Neil Decl. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss.
9. "Eddie The Clerk"
Adams alleges that "Eddie" (no last name is provided) is a clerk at a branch office of the United States Post Office who is involved in illegally taping and bugging Adams' activities. See Ex. I.
10. Ted Tipton/Lipton
Adams alleges that Ted Tipton (also occasionally identified as Lipton) is a fireman who was involved in the kidnaping of her mother. See Compl. at 2. She also claims that Lipton was involved in somehow illegally bugging her home and the conspiracy to kill her. See SCS.
11. Friar Bernidino Andrade
Adams alleges that Andrade is a Friar at a Catholic Church whose members were involved in the conspiracy to kill her. However, Adams states that Andrade is not yet implicated in the conspiracy. See SCS.
12. Joann Mass.
Adams alleges that Mass. is a member of the Catholic Church vigilante group involved in a conspiracy to kill her. Sec SCS.
13. American Medical Response
Adams has not made any specific allegations against American Medical Response, but she does claim that her mother was kidnaped by paramedics. See Compl. at 2.
14. Merrithew Regional hospital
Adams has not made any specific allegations against Merrithew, but she does claim that a hospital was responsible for medical malpractice that led to the death of her mother. See Ex. I; SCS. Adams also claims that a hospital treated her mother against her mother's will. See SCS.
15. Raley's
Adams alleges that Raley's allowed its employees to gossip about her. She claims Raley's and its employees violated the Fourth and Ninth Amendments of the United States Constitution. See SCS.
16. The Ledger-Dispatch
Adams does not make any specific accusations against The Ledger, but she does claim that a newspaper received part of the money that was stolen from her. See SCS.
17. Richard Cagle
Adams alleges that Cagle falsely accused her of intravenous drug use. See Ex. I.
18. Pat Anderson
Adams does not make any specific accusations against Anderson, but claims that he violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. See SCS.
19. Daniel Twohy
Adams alleges that Twohy intended to kill her and was involved with the commercial truck incident. See Compl. at 2.
20. Dr. Tremain
Adams alleges that Tremain was involved in the medical malpractice that led to her mother's death. See SCS.
21. Dr. McNabb
Adams alleges that McNabb was involved in a conspiracy to cover up the medical malpractice committed on her mother. See SCS.
22. "Woo"
Adams had not made any specific allegations against "Woo."
23. Ronald Johnson
Adams had not made any specific allegations against Ronald Johnson.
DISCUSSION
The following defendants have moved to dismiss Adam's complaint: (1) Contra Costa County; (2) Friar Andrade and Mass; (3) Raley's and Leshe O'Neil; and (4) Tom Lambert and Pat Anderson. The defendants seek dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting that Adams has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The defendants argue that Adams' complaint is vague, conclusory, and states unreasonable inferences of a delusional nature. Adams has not formally opposed the motions to dismiss, but has instead filed a document entitled "Status Conference Statement" in which she attempts to clarify her accusations against each of the moving defendants.
I. LEGAL STANDARD FOR 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted. See Gilligan v. Jamco Dev. Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir. 1997). Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint should not be dismissed unless a plaintiff can prove "no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington. 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). The court must take the non-moving party's factual allegations as true and must construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See id. The court must also draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987).
II. WHETHER ADAMS HAS STATED A CLAIM
The defendants argue that Adams has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because her complaint makes allegations that are vague, incoherent and delusional. Under Rule 12(b)(6), "a court need not accept as true unreasonable inferences, unwarranted deductions of fact, or conclusory legal allegations cast in the form of factual allegations." Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp. 1450, 1462 (CD. Cal. 1996); see Brown v. City of Onconta. 235 F.3d 769, 780 (2d Cir. 2000) (Kearse, C.J., dissenting) (arguing that under Rule 12(b)(6) facts must be taken as true "unless they are fanciful or delusionary, or . . . they represent only legal conclusions."); Aulson v. Blanchard. 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1996) (noting that a court need not "swallow the plaintiff's invective hook, line, and sinker; bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like need not be credited"); In re DeLorean Motor Co., 991 F.2d 1236, 1240 (6th Cir. 1993) (noting that a complaint must state "more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions"); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that "[d]ismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory"); Kennedy v. H M Landing. Inc., 529 F.2d 987, 989 (9th Cir. 1976) (noting that a pleading does not adequately state a claim "if the allegations are mere conclusions"). Moreover, according to Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), a court may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d) when the claim is "fantastic or delusional . . ." 490 U.S. at 328. Although the plaintiff here is not proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is not acting sua sponte and Neitzke supports the principle that a district court may dismiss claims that are delusional.
Here, the defendants have asked the Court to dismiss the complaint as based completely upon delusions of persecution. Indeed. Adams' claim is a long-winded and inchoate dissertation on perceived inequities at the hands of various members of her community. Adams alleges that there is some sort of bizarre conspiracy to kill her, but her allegations appear to be based entirely on her own intuitions, voices she claims to hear through two-way mirrors, and delusions such as mysterious men who are following her. Adams bases her claim on allegations such as the following:
I was to be murdered through the ingestion of poison through the application of chemically treated toilet paper, which I fortunately detected an knew exactly what it was. [L]earning my innocence, I hear [sic] "How would you feel if your plans to kill her were successful?" "Just terrible, just terrible," a woman comments, "You should be in prison . . ."
Compl. at 2. Adams' complaint is replete with such delusional references.
Taken as a whole, Adams complaint is an unreasonable inference of persecution by people that may or may not even exist. The plaintiff's complaint is based entirely on unreasonable inferences, unwarranted deductions of fact, or conclusory legal claims cast m the form of factual allegations. Adams has not stated a coherent claim against any of the defendants, and her repeated filings of subsequent papers in support of her complaint suggest that it is very unlikely that permitting her to amend her complaint will clarify her claims and the factual basis on which they rest. Accordingly, the defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are therefore GRANTED. For the sake of judicial economy, the plaintiff's complaint shall be DISMISSED with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED. The plaintiff's complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.