Opinion
Case No.: 2:16-cv-02870-JAD-CWH
04-24-2017
Barbara Ruth Cram, Plaintiff v. U.S. Interior, Defendant
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation Dismissing Case with Prejudice, and Denying Remaining Motions as Moot [ECF Nos. 3-8, 11]
Pro se plaintiff Barbara Ruth Cram sues the "U.S. Interior." Cram alleges that she and her newborn baby were both stabbed, beheaded, and murdered by "subject[s]" she describes as "ventriloquists [that] sound like each other and have white hair," who "work in corrections," and are "members of a roving gang." Cram explains that she was delayed in bringing her complaint because she "was raped at [her] home 1200 times, [was] kidnapped daily . . . [and] was shot over 100 times in the head while trying to bring this case." Cram requests $5,000,000 in damages.
ECF No. 1-2 at 1-19.
Id. at 1-3, 5-11.
Id. at 15.
Id. at 18-19.
Magistrate Judge Bill Hoffman granted Cram's application to proceed in forma pauperis, but recommends that Cram's complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that all pending motions in the case be denied as moot because Cram's allegations "describe fantastic and delusional scenarios and do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted." In so recommending, Magistrate Judge Hoffman references the above-cited factual allegations from Cram's complaint, along with other allegations made by Cram in the disjointed 19-page affidavit she attached to her complaint. Cram timely objects.
ECF No. 7 (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that a district court is not required to provide leave to amend a complaint if the complaint could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts)).
See id. at 2.
ECF No. 10.
In her objection, Cram raises additional incoherent allegations of "guarding judges," "Janet Reno's home," "the Secretary of State," "the U.S. President[,] and more than one senator that became president." Cram also cites previous work she allegedly performed as "a secret service agent," as well as accomplishments that she has allegedly achieved, such as passing a "review by the Senate Intelligence Committee for [her] work performance." Cram then states, "I assure you I do not want to be delusional or frivolous in court," before describing throughout the remainder of her 37-page objection another gruesome tableau of "baby massacre[s]," disembowelments, repeated murders of herself and babies, graphic sexual and physical assaults on her and babies, being "beheaded 10 times," and dying 10 times before being resurrected.
Id. at 1-3.
Id.
Only two brief portions of Cram's objection even purport to challenge Magistrate Judge Hoffman's Report and Recommendation. First, at page 17, Cram disputes the magistrate judge's quote from her complaint that she was raped "1200 times." Cram asserts that instead, she "ha[s] been raped about 1500 times[,] . . . was knifed hundreds of times during [the] rape[s,] and died sometimes to be raised[,] . . . [only] to be later dropped on the freeway in the travel lanes to die under cars." Second, Cram asserts that she is "requesting 40 million dollars for everything and still know[s] what these things are worth. My 5 million was so low that it could be settled by you easily and you could let me know what you think if it wasn't enough." Cram supports her increased demand for money damages by asserting for the first time that "[t]here is also the death of approximately 1,000 infants in association with the violent crime [she] described."
Id. at 17.
Id.
Id. at 19.
Id. at 19-20.
"'A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.'" "The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." "A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge."
U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)).
Id.
Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, the court must screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, the court must identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint is frivolous if it contains "claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless," such as "claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios."
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).
Dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only dismiss them "if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [her] claim which would entitle [her] to relief."
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012).
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). --------
Here, Magistrate Judge Hoffman recommends dismissal of this case with prejudice and denying all remaining motions as moot because Cram's complaint alleges only delusional and frivolous allegations and fails to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. I agree. Cram's complaint lacks any plausible factual allegations and is replete with delusional and frivolous claims. Having reviewed de novo those portions of the Report and Recommendation that Cram objects to, I find no error. Cram's only objections to the Report and Recommendation purport to: (1) correct implausible facts from her complaint; and (2) seek my advice on whether a $40 million demand for money damages is more appropriate than her original $5 million demand. I am not persuaded by Cram's objections because they are delusional, frivolous, and purport to seek my advice on a legal matter, which I cannot give. Thus, the only reasons provided by Cram for objecting to Magistrate Judge Hoffman's Report and Recommendation fail.
Accordingly, and with good cause appearing,
It is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hoffman's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 7] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Cram's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice and all pending motions [ECF Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11] are DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.
DATED April 24, 2017.
/s/_________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge