Opinion
No. C 08-1241 CW.
September 18, 2008
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Defendant Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), erroneously sued as "Caltrain," moves for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff Jerome Grimes opposes the motion. The matter was taken under submission on the papers.
This action arises from an incident that took place on December 26, 2007 aboard a Caltrain commuter train managed by the JPB. According to the complaint, Defendant Robert Schreader, a Caltrain conductor, refused to accept Plaintiff's ticket and ordered him to get off the train. Plaintiff maintains that Mr. Schreader then refused to provide Plaintiff with his employee identification number. In addition, Mr. Schreader also allegedly called the Sheriff's Department in an attempt to prevent Plaintiff from seeing the train's identification number, fifty-four, "which, COINCIDENTALLY, is the last (2) Two, Numbers Of The Plaintiff's, Home Telephone Number." Compl. at 6. Although the remainder of the allegations in the complaint are difficult to decipher, Plaintiff appears to allege that, despite complying with Mr. Schreader's instructions, he was arrested and spent 1464 hours in jail. Plaintiff maintains that Mr. Schreader's actions were part of a "Blatant Covert Terror Intent, to, Induce, and, Entrap" him, id. at 3, and that they demonstrate the "cold blooded modus operandi, of the, Post-09/11/01, covert terror network," id. at 5.
The JPB states that, based on the information available to it, Mr. Schreader is employed by Amtrak, an unrelated entity. Mr. Schreader has not appeared in this action, and although Plaintiff has filed proof of service on "Caltrain," he has not filed proof of service on Mr. Schreader.
The complaint lists a number of purported causes of action, including "abuse of authority," violations of the Sixth Amendment, perjury, "Covert Kidnapping," false imprisonment and "petty theft." Plaintiff seeks money damages and an "order for the, Defendant, Robert Schreader, to be fired, from, His, employment as a, Caltrain Agent, in memory of the, March 11, 2004, Madrid, Spain, Covert Terror Victims." Id.
This Court previously found that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. On December 9, 2005, the Court issued a pre-filing order concerning cases brought by him. The order states that if, while he is not incarcerated or detained, Plaintiff attempts to file a complaint that is related to any of the following subject matters:
(1) a diversified group of individuals who commit acts of terror against Mr. Grimes, his family and other citizens;
(2) an injunction against the defendants to prevent them from kidnaping, framing, falsely imprisoning or otherwise terrorizing Mr. Grimes, his family, and other citizens;
(3) a court order for the defendants to be subjected to a lie detector test;
(4) covert terrorism
it will not be accepted for filing unless, after an initial review, the Court determines that it presents cognizable claims that are not based merely on conclusory allegations. In addition, no other complaints will be accepted for filing by Plaintiff while he is not incarcerated or detained, unless an initial review determines that they contain intelligible factual allegations and cognizable claims for relief.
Plaintiff initially filed the complaint in this action in state court and the action was subsequently removed by the JPB. Accordingly, the Court did not conduct an initial pre-filing review. Nonetheless, this action must be considered in light of Plaintiff's extensive history of filing complaints concerning terrorism conspiracies and lacking intelligible factual allegations or cognizable claims for relief. The Court finds that the allegations in the complaint do not support a cognizable federal claim against Defendants, and the JPB's motion for judgment on the pleadings is therefore GRANTED. The clerk shall enter judgment against Plaintiff and close the file. The parties shall bear their own costs.
This is the second lawsuit before the Court based on the Caltrain incident. The first lawsuit, Grimes v. Schreader, No. C08-0162, was filed on January 11, 2008. The Court dismissed the action because Plaintiff failed either to pay the filing fee or to complete an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Although Mr. Schreader has not moved to dismiss the claims against him, the Court's finding that the complaint does not state a cognizable legal claim applies equally to the claims against Mr. Schreader. Moreover, there is no indication that Mr. Schreader has been served with the summons and complaint, and the 120-day period for service has passed. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).
IT IS SO ORDERED.