Free Order on Motion to Dismiss - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02388-DMS-POR

Document 42

Filed 06/24/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 vs. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PAULA PATSON, et al., Defendants. This case comes before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed by the Federal Defendants. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion, and the Federal Defendants have filed a reply. For the reasons set out below, the Court grants the motion. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Michael Fox is proceeding pro se in this case. On December 20, 2007, he filed a Complaint naming the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the United States Attorneys Office and the United States Department of Justice as defendants. In that Complaint, Plaintiff sought an order from this Court directing those entities to investigate the alleged violations of Plaintiff's civil rights. On January 30, 2008, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. That Complaint names a number of additional individuals and entities as defendants, and includes a long narrative of recent events in Plaintiff's life. One of these events was a car accident that occurred in Galveston, Texas. Plaintiff was sleeping in his minivan, which was parked on the side of a road, when his vehicle was -1MICHAEL FOX, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 07cv2388 DMS (POR) ORDER GRANTING THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [Docket No. 21]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

07cv2388

Case 3:07-cv-02388-DMS-POR

Document 42

Filed 06/24/2008

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

hit from behind by another vehicle. Certain individuals involved in that accident are named as defendants in the First Amended Complaint. In general, the First Amended Complaint includes allegations of a vast government conspiracy to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights, including bodily attacks on Plaintiff by government officials, constant government surveillance of Plaintiff, government interference with Plaintiff's vehicle, government interference with Plaintiff's postal and electronic mail delivery, and the subject car accident, which Plaintiff alleges was staged by the government. II. DISCUSSION The Federal Defendants move to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on three grounds. First, they argue Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Second, the Federal Defendants assert the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. Finally, the Federal Defendants contend Plaintiff's claims against them are unexhausted. Because the jurisdictional argument is dispositive, the Court begins and ends its analysis with that issue. Based on this Court's review of the First Amended Complaint, it appears Plaintiff is attempting to allege a violation of his federal constitutional rights, over which this Court would have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction where the claim before it is "wholly insubstantial and frivolous." Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946). A claim is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). If a claim is classified as frivolous, "there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying action and so no reason to grant leave to amend." Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Here, the Federal Defendants argue Plaintiff's case meets this standard, and given the allegations set out above, the Court agrees. Plaintiff's allegations about a vast government conspiracy are "totally divorced from the real world, or in the language of the Supreme Court, `so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.'" O'Connor v. United States, 159 F.R.D. 22, 26 (D. Md. 1994) (quoting Nietzke, 490 U.S. at 327 n.6). Because Plaintiff cannot possibly amend his -2-

07cv2388

Case 3:07-cv-02388-DMS-POR

Document 42

Filed 06/24/2008

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

complaint to correct these deficiencies, the motion to dismiss is granted without leave to amend.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER In light of the above, the Court grants the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss. All other pending motions are hereby denied as moot. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 24, 2008

HON. DANA M. SABRAW United States District Judge

-3-

07cv2388