Opinion
No. C 05-3472 WHA.
October 27, 2005
DISMISSAL ORDER
This action, styled as an action for collection of a debt and alleging civil RICO violations, is DISMISSED for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's filings with the Court are delusional rants. She asks this court to collect "[t]he World Debt and the National Debt." She fails to allege any facts to suggest the basis of a civil RICO claim.
These claims are "so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit," and therefore fail to confer subject-matter jurisdiction. See Newburyport Water Co. v. City of Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904) (holding that federal court had no federal-question jurisdiction when claims were utterly insubstantial). See also Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31, 33 (1962) (holding that there was no requirement to convene three-judge panel to consider constitutionality of state statute when the constitutional issues presented was "frivolous" and "essentially fictitious"); Hannis Distilling Co. v. City of Baltimore, 216 U.S. 285, 288 (1910) ("[A]ssumption [of federal jurisdiction] may not be indulged in simply because it appears from the record that a federal question was averred, if such question be obviously frivolous or plainly unsubstantial . . . because it is manifestly devoid of merit.").
For this reason, the case is DISMISSED for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is ORDERED TO CLOSE the case and to DISREGARD any future filings in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.