Latronica v. Double Tree BY Hilton et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01709

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 05/19/15. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/20/2015: # {{1}} Certificate/Proof of Service)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MELANIE C. LATRONICA, 7 Case No. 15-cv-01709-DMR Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DISMISSING CASE 9 DOUBLE TREE BY HILTON, et al., 10 Re: Dkt. No. 12 Defendants. 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court On April 15, 2015, Plaintiff Melanie Latronica filed a Complaint. [Docket No. 1.] On 13 April 24, 2015, the court dismissed the case pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) 14 and 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, granted Plaintiff leave to amend.1 [Docket No. 15 5.] Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint. [Docket No. 12.] 16 In the previous order dismissing the case, the court stated "that Plaintiff's allegations are 17 entirely incomprehensible and arise to the level of 'wholly fanciful' such that sua sponte dismissal 18 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate at this stage." Docket No. 5 at 4 (citing 19 Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981) "District courts 20 have the authority to dismiss complaints founded on 'wholly fanciful' factual allegations for lack 21 of subject matter jurisdiction.")). The court was "unable to discern from Plaintiff's complaint 22 23 1 A magistrate judge generally must obtain the consent of the parties to enter dispositive rulings 24 and judgments in a civil case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). However, in cases such as this one, where the plaintiff has consented but not served the defendants, "all parties have consented 25 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)," and a magistrate judge therefore "'may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case.'" Gaddy 26 v. McDonald, No. CV 11-08271 SS, 2011 WL 5515505, at *1 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (quoting § 636(c)(1)) (citing United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995)); 27 Third World Media, LLC v. Doe, No. C 10-04470 LB, 2011 WL 4344160, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2011)); see also Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that magistrate 28 judge had jurisdiction to dismiss action as frivolous without consent of defendants because defendants had not yet been served and therefore were not parties). 1 what claim she is alleging against whom, and what relief she is seeking from the Court." Id. at 2. 2 The court noted that the Complaint listed "[o]ver fifty individuals and/or entities" as defendants, 3 some of whom were unidentifiable, and many of whom had no allegations directed toward them. 4 Id. The court also found that "[t]he allegations against Defendants are entirely incoherent, reciting 5 claims of 'bondage,' 'burning the skin & eyes/Torture,' 'non-stop identity theft,' 'chattel game- 6 playing' and 'neurocybernetics.'" Id. The Complaint attached filings from Plaintiff's previous 7 cases, photographs of unidentified individuals, dictionary entries, lists of Time Warner properties, 8 information about the Xerox Corporation, and other seemingly random items. Id. at 3. The court 9 also stated that "Plaintiff lists several amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, several federal criminal and civil statutes, see Compl. 18-19, though 10 it is unclear whether she alleges that any of these were violated, by whom, and under what legal 11 authority she is pursuing a claim for their violation." Id. at 3. 12 Northern District of California United States District Court The Amended Complaint is no more comprehensible than the Complaint. The following is 13 a representative sample of the statements in the Amended Complaint: 14 15 As noted in the answer to the order dated April 24, 2015: the Plaintif(s) have never been criminals although have been given a 16 death sentence. Private sectors, Private Enterprises, Terra 2 and or 1 is being destroyed by these criminal defendants and the 17 Plaintiff in the case against the defendants. please see defendants and the accompanied request with the claim of an 18 emergency order for them to stop now expedited, as mentioned honorable court it doesn't matter where the Plaintiff goes and or 19 lives and or what town these defendants don't stop. (terras a minor) 20 Live Deprivation (reason) Larcency stealing plaintiff(s) life & 21 capuut off with the head $$$. 1. Chattel Slavery/Judgment without due process/Substantive & Private Law, Private Sectors. 2. 22 Torture/mass bodily injury/identity theft/double tree imposters/leeches/parasites technical internal. 23 (Reputation as a reminder); Honorable Court due to the (CHTLS) 24 (IS) (RP) (CS) (CC) (P) situation the Plaintiff(s) have honestly exhausted all legal remedies and is exhausted due to the defendants 25 fraudulent concealment and the defendants in a constant activity nonstop and the defendants giving the plaintiff(s) the run around 26 especially about the identity of these criminal defendants who are demised. The defendants are now known due to investigating at 27 the assessor's office and at the recorder's office. The defendants are guilty of being the worst obstruction of justice when the plaintiff 28 is doing everything legal not to be subjected to this and to not be a victim for another day. 2 1 The defendaants some off them are liiens and or m mechanic lieens and so that's one of o the main reasons as tto why the P Plaintiff(s) hhave been 2 involuntarily (and willl never givve permissioon to these criminal defendants) subjected to all of thiss. The Plainntiff(s) didn't sign up 3 for any of th his from day y one. 4 Am m. Compl. att 1-6. 5 "A distrrict court should not dism miss a pro see complaint without leavve to amend unless it is 6 abssolutely cleaar that the deeficiencies off the complaaint could noot be cured bby amendmennt." Akhtar 7 v. Mesa, M 698 F.3d 1202, 12 212 (9th Cir.. 2012) (quootations omittted). Here, the court has already 8 giv ven Plaintiff an opportun nity to amend d her complaaint, but the Amended C Complaint stiill fails to 9 alleege any causse of action against a any person p or enntity, or evenn state any cooncrete evennt or 10 tran nsaction thatt occurred att any time. The T court thherefore dism misses the coomplaint andd closes the 11 casse. 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 IT IS SO S ORDER RED. 14 15 Daated: May 19 9, 2015 16 __________________________________________ 17 DOONNA M. R RYU Unnited States M Magistrate Juudge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3