Opinion
22-cv-01084-LB
05-23-2022
CHRISTINA J. HANSON, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES DOWLING, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT Re: ECF Nos. 17, 19
LAUREL BEELER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The plaintiff, who is representing herself and proceeding in forma pauperis, sued the “NSA/FBI,” claiming that NSA agent Charles Dowling (1) wrongly identified her as an informant (with the FBI's Oakland field office) and (2) implanted a “Stargate Remote Viewing Device” in her right eye. The undersigned granted her application to proceed in forma pauperis, screened her complaint for minimum legal viability under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), set out the legal standard, identified the complaint's deficiencies (the allegations were fanciful but the plaintiff identified a specific agent, suggesting that something possibly happened), and gave the plaintiff an opportunity to provide details about what happened to her. In her amended complaint, the plaintiff added allegations about touching and bruising, and she named four agents who allegedly 1 kidnapped her (Danni Crandell, Neal White, Charles Dowling, and Tammy Dowling). The court asked the plaintiff to explain (1) how she was injured, and who caused the injury, and (2) what happened to her during her alleged kidnapping (and her apparent tying of that kidnapping to an invisible neuroscience harness). The plaintiff filed a statement explaining that (1) the injuries resulted from Agent Dowling's use of the “Neuroscience Engineering Harness,” (2) his wife, Agent Tammy Dowling, and Tammy's father (Jim Gaines, who works for the CIA), obtained mutation bugs and (essentially) deployed them against her, and (3) she suffered harms as a victim of human experimentation. The plaintiff also filed documents from her healthcare providers.
Compl. - ECF No. 1. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.
Order - ECF No. 10 (attached and incorporated herein fully by this reference).
Suppl. Statement - ECF No. 17; Order - ECF No. 18.
Order - ECF No. 18.
Suppl. Statement - ECF No. 17 (recounting additional fanciful harms).
See Highland Adult Medicine Clinic - ECF No. 6 (the plaintiff's attending physician attested that the plaintiff never discussed the government, NSA agents, or the Stargate Devise before December 2020).
Because there was a suggestion of actual engagement with agents and resulting physical injury in the earlier filings, the court gave the plaintiff an opportunity to amend to provide more detail about what happened. Those allegations confirm that the complaint is fanciful and frivolous and does not plausibly plead claims. Thus, it is not minimally viable, and the case must be dismissed.
Because not all parties have appeared and consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, the case must be reassigned to a district judge. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017). The undersigned directs the Clerk of Court to reassign the case to a district judge and recommends that the newly assigned district judge dismiss the amended complaint. Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within fourteen days after being served with a copy. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 72-3. Failure to file written objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. 2