Opinion
No. C 04-01434 SI.
June 29, 2004
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without leave to amend. Judgment is entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
On June 25, 2004 the Court heard argument on defendant's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for a more definite statement. Having carefully considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, the Court GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss; the motion for a more definite statement is denied as moot.BACKGROUND
This case concerns allegations of harassment, conspiracy, and social decay throughout the United States by an apparently homeless person living at present in San Francisco. On April 12, 2004, plaintiff Jo Whigham ("Whigham") filed a complaint against the City of San Francisco ("San Francisco" or the "City"). This complaint, and several motions that followed it, allege: (i) ongoing abuse by "Black (Afro) Americans"; (ii) "harassment" by police both in San Francisco and elsewhere; (iii) "harassment" by specific individuals at the McMillan drop-in shelter in San Francisco ("McMillan") where plaintiff stayed for some period of time; and (iv) harassment and conspiracy by various unnamed individuals.
Motion to prohibit Theresa Lockhart and other of her cronies from touching my personal items and reporting any sniffles or things to harass me (Filed on May 4, 2004); Motion to prohibit Black (Afro) Americans from interfering in my life (Filed on May 4, 2004); Motion for order to keep police from harassing me (Filed on May 21, 2004).
Plaintiff alleges that much of this harassment is manifested by specific people who forbid her from covering her chair at McMillan with paper and foil in order to sleep on it without incurring "cardiac arrhythmias." Compl. at 1-2, Attachment to Compl. at 1 of 5 She alleges that these actions, along with other varied nuisances, are the result of a conspiracy by African-Americans to control the United States. Whigham further alleges that this harassment stems, inter alia, from a complaint she lodged against the police at some prior point elsewhere in the country and implies that many of her present difficulties are the result of retaliation resulting from that suit. Compl. at 1. In various documents Whigham alleges that the harassment she confronts is a component of a broader societal problem where African-Americans control individuals and society with specific aims to cause her harm.
Whigham's complaint consists of two pages. She attaches and incorporates by reference a series of "Citizen Assistance Intake Forms" that she submitted to the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services on March 22 and 25, 2004, and April 12, 2004. Citations are to the page numbering at the bottom right hand corner of the page.
The complaint and the other motions describe various incidents and interactions between Whigham and other residents of McMillan, employees of McMillan, police officers of various cities, the FBI, and the Queen of England and members of the Royal Family. The anecdotes provided serve as alleged support for Whigham's claims of ongoing abuse at the hands of African-Americans and those who she believes are in their service.
Now before the Court is defendant's motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, for a more definite statement under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(e) as well as plaintiff's three motions filed on May 4, 2004 and May 21, 2004.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Motion to dismiss
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The question presented by a motion to dismiss is not whether the plaintiff will prevail in the action, but whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence in support of the claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (2004). See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). In answering this question, the Court must assume that the plaintiff's allegations are true and must draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). Even if the face of the pleadings suggests that the chance of recovery is remote, the Court must allow the plaintiff to develop the case at this stage of the proceedings. See United States v. City of Redwood City, 640 F.2d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 1981).
If the Court dismisses the complaint, it must then decide whether to grant leave to amend. The Ninth Circuit has "repeatedly held that a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts." Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
B. Motion for more definite statement
Under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "if the pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e) (2004).
DISCUSSION
A. Motion to dismiss
The grounds for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) are that, assuming the facts alleged in the complaint are true, plaintiff has not stated any valid claims for relief. In addition, plaintiff has not asserted any basis on which to assert federal jurisdiction of her claims.
When examining Whigham's complaint, even if the facts alleged are all completely accurate, Whigham fails to allege a claim upon which federal relief can be granted. Plaintiff has failed to provide any facts linking defendant City and County of San Francisco or any of its officers or employees to the harms she has allegedly suffered. The anecdotes provided by plaintiff are designed to serve as either evidence of ongoing troubles with various people and entities or as situations necessitating relief themselves. However, in neither capacity do the allegations of confrontations at McMillan, interactions with the FBI or the police, or interactions with various unaffiliated individuals, serve as claims upon which relief can be granted. These encounters do not demonstrate actionable events. The Court paid particular note to the alleged encounters between Whigham and police officers of the City and to alleged encounters between Whigham and employees of McMillan; however, the Court fails to see how the interactions outlined rise to the level of misconduct on the part of the City or its employees.
Additionally, it is unclear exactly what relief Whigham seeks from her complaint. Plaintiff frequently mentions a desire to be left alone by others, particularly by African-Americans and Asian-Americans, and also states an unequivocal desire to see the United States function as a nation of equal citizens without a ruling class composed of either a particular racial group or monied group. It is beyond the purview of this Court to provide relief of this nature.
The Court has GRANTED defendant's motion dismiss, without leave to amend, making defendant's motion to dismiss moot. On that basis, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
B. Plaintiff's motions
Plaintiff has filed three motions: Motion to prohibit Theresa Lockhart and other of her cronies from touching my personal items and reporting any sniffles or things to harass me (Filed on May 4, 2004); motion to prohibit Black (Afro) Americans from interfering in my life (Filed on May 4, 2004); and motion for order to keep police from harassing me (Filed on May 21, 2004). The Court is unable to grant any of these motions, and all three are DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss. Leave to amend would be futile and is not granted. The Court further DENIES plaintiff's motions. [DOCKET ## 5, 6, 8, and 11]
The Clerk shall close the file.