Opinion
No. C 03-05582 CRB
December 17, 2003
ORDER
On December 11, 2003, plaintiff Patricia Rice filed a complaint against: "The United States Supreme Court", "The Federal Courthouse, Sacramento, CA", "S JEWS all over the world", John Stroughair, his wife Yedwega their daughter in Germany", "Oliver Wyman NYNY", and "The United States Senate." The Court hereby DISMISSES plaintiff's complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff's complaint is so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.
Plaintiff's handwritten complaint includes the following claims:
Systematic Murder of My family
For breaking up ATT
Aiding Abetting in Criminal Activity
Stalking my Family Friends via Computer Telephone
Denying Equal Rights Under the Law Justice
Bias Treatment towards Women Children [and]
Trying to rewrite history
Compl. p. 1.
In support of the above claims, plaintiff states:
I offer into evidence the following
(1) Ford Motor Company driving their truck through the Constitution via "Brave New World" Creating a religion for profit
(2) The Ford Modeling Agency Clayton Ford, Clay Ferrell, and all other Clays for being profitable and using these profits to continue driving a hole in the Constitution
(3) I offer also into evidence the relationship between Benjamin Madeline Gilbert, their house called Greensleeves, the Sons Greensleeves "Ho Zana" — Oh Susanna and all the other Gilbert family members . . . for misuse of the judicial system, aiding and abetting in criminal activities, buying judges, and manipulating judges,
(4) S Jews for saying they are above the law . . .
Compl. ¶¶ 1-4.
The complaint continues in a similar fashion with eighteen such points. That is the totality of plaintiffs complaint. The plaintiff's 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 (C.D. Cal. 1996); see Brown v. City of Oneonta, 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 plaintiffs 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 toNeitzke 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, Neitzke supports the principle that a district court may dismiss claims that are delusional.
In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n. 6 (1989), the Supreme Court noted: "A patently insubstantial complaint may be dismissed, for example, for want of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See, e.g., Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-537, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1378-79, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974) (federal courts lack power to entertain claims that are "`so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit'") (citation omitted); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-683, 66 S.Ct. 773, 776-76, 90 L.Ed. 939(1946)."
Taken as a whole, plaintiff's complaint is patently insubstantial. Plaintiff has not stated a coherent claim against any of the defendants. Plaintiff's claims are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be devoid of merit. Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES this claim with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.