Summary
dismissing complaint presenting a "fantastic and delusional scenario" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in which Starbucks and law enforcement were alleged to have conspired to conduct surveillance of Plaintiff in his home, and administered drugs to him at various Starbucks stores in order to prevent him from stalking and murdering women
Summary of this case from Rangel v. PachecoOpinion
No. CV-06-1841-PHX-DGC.
June 11, 2007
ORDER
Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Dkt. #35. Plaintiff has filed a response and Defendant has filed a reply. Dkt. ##42-43. The Court will grant the motion.
I. Background.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this action by filing a complaint against Defendant on June 26, 2006, in Arizona state court. Defendant removed the action to this Court on July 26, 2006. Plaintiff asserted various claims against Defendant and sought $100 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages. Dkt. #1, Attach. 1.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #5. The Court granted the motion, concluding that the complaint failed to provide any factual detail or legal basis for Defendant's alleged liability. The Court granted leave to amend. Dkt. #13.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2006. The complaint purports to allege claims of conspiracy, slander, libel, illegal surveillance, undercover "sting" operations, and unlawful "doping" of beverages. Dkt. #14.
Defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Dkt. #17. The Court granted the motion with respect to Plaintiff's claims for slander and libel, participation in undercover operations and surveillance, and § 1983 violations with respect to these alleged wrongs. The Court denied the motion with respect to doping allegations that stated a claim for assault and battery and a claim for violation of § 1983. The Court noted that while Plaintiff's allegations seemed implausible, the Court was required to accept them as true under Rule 12(b)(6). Dkt. #28.
II. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides that the Court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis action "at any time if the court determines that [the action] is frivolous or malicious[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Defendant argues that the amended complaint should be dismissed because the factual allegations supporting Plaintiff's claims are fanciful, delusional, and completely baseless. Dkt. #35. Plaintiff contends that this suit is not about money, that he strongly believes in his claims, and that he should be afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery and prove his claims at trial. Plaintiff also suggests that the Court found his claims to have merit when it declined to dismiss them under Rule 12(b)(6). Dkt. #42.
The Court's previous ruling does not preclude a finding under § 1915 that this action is frivolous. Rule 12(b)(6) and § 1915 have separate functions and confer on the Court different powers to dismiss. "Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis of a dispositive issue of law." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-27 (1989). The rule does not permit "dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations." Id. at 327. Section 1915, by contrast, does not require the court "to accept without question the truth of the plaintiff's allegations." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). The statute gives courts "the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The exercise of this power furthers the statute's goal of "discourag[ing] the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit[.]" Id.
Plaintiff alleges that law enforcement agents view him as "a stalker, serial killer, woman dismemberer [sic], child molester, [and] government subversive." Dkt. #14 at 2. He claims that Defendant has joined with law enforcement agencies and several other commercial establishments in "a doping campaign" that administered "some sort of Anti-Testosterone/chemical" to Plaintiff in order to prevent him from stalking. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant participated in "numerous undercover and illegal sting operations" and that he overheard Starbucks employees say that a policeman had shown them "photos of a compromising nature" of Plaintiff — photos that "could only have been obtained by illegal in home surveillance." Id. at 1, 6 (emphasis in original).
With all due respect to Plaintiff, these allegations "rise to the level of [the] irrational" and "wholly incredible[.]" Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. The amended complaint presents a "fantastic and delusional scenario" in which Starbucks and law enforcement have conspired to conduct surveillance of Plaintiff in his home and to administer drugs at various Starbucks stores in order to prevent him from stalking and murdering women. Golden v. Clinton, No. C 94-0499 EFL, 1994 WL 118280, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 1994). No matter how sincerely believed by Plaintiff, these allegations are simply too fantastic to warrant the expenditure of further judicial and private resources.
The Court will exercise its discretion to dismiss this action under § 1915. See id. (dismissing action alleging that various private and public officials had conspired to control the plaintiff through electronic and "telemetric" devices); Kierstead v. Suter, 903 F. Supp. 801, 802-03 (D.N.J. 1995) (dismissing action alleging that the government had conducted various biomedical studies on the plaintiff and had kept her under constant surveillance); Adams v. FBI, No. C 06-07321 CRB, 2007 WL 627912, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2007) (finding that the plaintiff had painted a "delusional portrait of extreme persecution" where she alleged that she had been monitored through hidden cameras in her home and had her blood drawn while rendered unconscious with a chemical substance). The Court does so to discourage Plaintiff from filing baseless lawsuits at no cost to himself. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
Subsequent to the filing of this action, Plaintiff filed in forma pauperis suits against President Bush, the Department of Justice, and the FBI alleging similarly fanciful claims of conspiracy, slander, assault, and covert surveillance. See Athans v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, No. CV-06-2433-PHX-MHM (D. Ariz. filed Nov. 12, 2006); Athans v. Bush, No. CV-07-687-PHX-ROS (D. Ariz. filed Mar. 29, 2007).
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. #35) is granted. Defendant's alternative motion for an expedited evidentiary hearing is denied as moot.
2. This action is dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
3. The Clerk shall terminate this action.