Richard L. Cain v. Barack H. Obama et al lawsuit (2014)
Richard L. Cain v. Barak H. Obama et al. (2014)
Plaintiff: Richard L. Cain
Defendants: Barack H. Obama, Alfred Mann Foundation, Pat Brady (Chief of Naval Operations, in his official capacity), Pat Brady (in his individual capacity), John O. Brennan (United States Central Intelligence Agency, in his official capacity), John O. Brennan (in his individual capacity), Ramona Clark, Cottage Center for Advanced Imaging, Cottage Health System, Kenneth R. Daughters, Thomas C. Daughters, Dignity Health, Does 1 through 10, Jeffrey Hadsall, Chuck Hagel (in his individual capacity), Chuck Hagel (Secretary of Defense, official capacity), Steven Hartzman, Kai Kinder, Arthur A. Lee, Level 3 Communications, Raymond Mastrovito, John McHugh (in his individual capacity), John McHugh (as Secretary of the Army, in his official capacity), Nishant Mehta, Barack H. Obama, Kathleen Ponjunas, Pueblo Radiology, Donald Rink, Sansum Clinic, Sansum Diabetes Research Institute, Ali R. Sephardi, Simonmed Imaging, Sean Snodgres, United States Department of Defense, Unknown Federal Agents, John Wrench
BACKGROUND
On July 23, 2014, Plaintiff paid the filing fee and filed a pro
se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sections 1983, 1985
and 1986 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The 83-page Complaint is
accompanied by voluminous attachments. Plaintiff purports to sue the
President of the United States, the United States Department of
Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Navy Space
and Naval Warfare Systems Command, the United States Army Materiel
Command, “Level 3 Communications,” a private foundation, private
Case 2:14-cv-05735-DMG-E Document 5 Filed 08/06/14 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:554
health care entities, individual health care professionals, “unknown
Federal agents” and one hundred fictitious “Doe” Defendants.
Plaintiff alleges that various federal agencies have caused
“military grade biomedical devices” to be implanted in the bodies of
Plaintiff and his two minor children. These “radiofrequency devices”
allegedly permit Defendants to control and track Plaintiff’s
movements, control or alter Plaintiff’s mind, and cause Plaintiff to
suffer physically. The supposed devices allegedly make Plaintiff
appear mentally ill. The government Defendants also allegedly
conducted surveillance on Plaintiff and used military aircraft and
police and fire department sirens to attempt to cause Plaintiff to
suffer a mental breakdown. Plaintiff’s alleged use of shielding
devices assertedly foiled Defendants’ alleged plan to cause Plaintiff
to suffer a mental breakdown.
The health care Defendants allegedly falsified the results of
various medical examinations purportedly conducted on Plaintiff and
his children in order to conceal the alleged presence of the implanted
devices. This alleged falsification supposedly was part of an
asserted conspiracy to conceal the government Defendants’ alleged use
of implants to monitor and control Plaintiff and his children and to
cause them pain. Defendants allegedly triggered the devices on days
containing a “9” or a “1” and on the days before and after
September 11. Defendants also allegedly triggered the devices during
Plaintiff’s deposition in connection with a state court case which
Plaintiff assertedly brought against some Defendants. Defendants also
allegedly conspired to “frame” Plaintiff for crimes he allegedly did
Case 2:14-cv-05735-DMG-E Document 5 Filed 08/06/14 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:555
not commit and to label him a “person of interest” supposedly involved
in criminality. Plaintiff alleges that removal of the devices will
cause his death.
DISCUSSION
Typically, claims such as those alleged by Plaintiff have been
asserted by indigent plaintiffs, and have suffered swift dismissal as
“frivolous” under the federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C.
section 1915(e)(2)(B)(1) or its predecessor, 28 U.S.C. section
1915(d).1 See e.g., Banks v. An Unknown Named Number of Federal
Judges and U.S. Covert Government Agents, Fed. App’x , 2014 WL
1285117, at *1-2 (3d Cir. Apr. 1, 2014) (upholding dismissal of
complaint alleging that federal judges and others subjected Plaintiff
to a “Voice to Skull” technology); McGinnis v. Freudenthal, 426 Fed.
App’x 625, 628-29 (10th Cir. 2011) (upholding dismissal of frivolous
complaint alleging plaintiff was subjected to electromagnetic
torture); Ezike v. Na. R.R. Passenger Corp., 2009 WL 247838, at *1-3
(7th Cir. Feb. 3, 2009) (remanding for dismissal of complaint alleging
that plaintiff was the victim of a conspiracy involving various
employers, the teamsters, people of Indian descent, AMTRAK police and
armed secret agents); Mendes v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 759, 760-62
(Fed. Cl.), appeal dismissed, 375 Fed. App’x 4 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(upholding dismissal of frivolous complaint alleging that “zealot,
fanatical women” employed by the FBI and CIA used “laser beam
1 Section 1915(d) was amended and renumbered by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110
Stat. 1321, effective April 26, 1996).
Case 2:14-cv-05735-DMG-E Document 5 Filed 08/06/14 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:556
technology” against plaintiff); Ayres v. Obama, 2013 WL 5754953, at *2
(D. Hawai’i Oct. 22, 2013) (allegations that FBI implanted biochips in
plaintiff and her family to turn them into “a living vegetable or a
New World Order slave” were “so ‘fantastic’ and ‘fanciful’ as to be
clearly baseless”); Athans v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2007 WL 1673883,
at *1-2 (D. Ariz. June 11, 2007) (dismissing as frivolous complaint
which alleged, inter alia, that Starbucks joined law enforcement
agencies and other commercial establishments to administer a chemical
to plaintiff to prevent him from stalking); Foggy v. United States
Gov’t, 2007 WL 1667394, at *2-3 (D. Idaho June 5, 2007) (plaintiff
alleged the government used satellite to put “Hollywood voices” in her
head to instruct her to molest and kill her son); Hairston v. Cheney,
2004 WL 1368795, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 16, 2004) (dismissing as
frivolous a complaint alleging that defendants inserted a camera into
the plaintiff and conducted cosmic and weight gain experiments on
her); Jones v. North Atlantic Treaty Org., 1998 WL 136511, at *1-3
(E.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 1998) (two NATO member states allegedly “picked”
plaintiff’s head, publicly aired his thoughts and mumblings, and
caused him to be besieged by older women); McCorkle v. Ameritech, 1993
WL 524703, at *1-2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 1993) (United States Navy and
plaintiff’s employer allegedly harassed plaintiff by means of
hypnosis, placement of electronic receivers into plaintiff’s sinuses,
head, pelvis and rectum, placement of equipment in plaintiff’s home to
induce sleep deprivation, and use of shock discipline); Carrasco v.
U.S. Gov’t Justice Dep’t Strike Force, 792 F. Supp. 603, 604-05 (N.D.
Ill. 1992) (government allegedly surgically placed monitoring device
in plaintiff’s brain to record his dreams for law enforcement agencies
and made him an experiment for sex therapy); Chambers v. Webster, 1990
Case 2:14-cv-05735-DMG-E Document 5 Filed 08/06/14 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:557
WL 81339, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 5, 1990) (officials of CIA, Secret
Service, Justice Department, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and state
prison system allegedly conspired to harass plaintiff by means of
electroshock therapy, telekineses, voice synthesizers, hypnotism,
mental telepathy, and cybernetics); Shibuya v. George Washington
Univ., 1987 WL 14638, at *1-2 (D.D.C. Aug. 25, 1987) (university
employees allegedly monitored plaintiff and exposed her thoughts to
the public by use of microwaves and lasers, used drugs, microwaves,
lasers or hypnosis to induce artificial noises and smells in
plaintiff, and retarded plaintiff’s ability to take New York and
District of Columbia bar examinations).
Plaintiff presently is not in forma pauperis and apparently is
not in custody. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not subject to the
restrictions on frivolous complaints contained in 42 U.S.C. section
1915. However, a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to
consider claims that are “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by
prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit
as not to involve a federal controversy.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a
Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (citations and internal
quotations omitted); Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537 (1974) (court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims that are “essentially
fictitious,” “obviously frivolous” or “obviously without merit”);
Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) (court may
dismiss frivolous paid complaint for lack of subject matter
e 2:14-cv-05735-DMG-E Document 5 Filed 08/06/14 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:558
jurisdiction).2
Plaintiff’s frivolous, delusional and fanciful allegations do not
confer subject matter jurisdiction on this Court.3 See Bivolarevic v.
U.S. CIA, 2010 WL 890147, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2010) (court
lacked jurisdiction over claims that CIA subjected plaintiff to “voice
to skull technology” as a “mind control weapon”); Strode v. Dep’t of
Defense, 2004 WL 1572655, at *1-2 (W.D.N.Y. June 2, 2004) (dismissing
paid complaint which alleged that government agents transmitted from
their bodies “electomagnetic extremely low frequency radio energy from
master satellites”); O’Brien v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 927 F.
Supp. 382, 384-85 (D. Ariz. 1995), aff’d, 76 F.3d 387 (9th Cir. 1996)
(unpublished disposition) (plaintiff alleged that various defendants
including the United States Department of Justice, Ted Kennedy, Andy
Williams, Johnny Mathis, Janet Reno, Neil Diamond, Nancy Reagan, the
Phoenix Suns, Charles Barkley, the Arizona governor, the Arizona
attorney general, and National Basketball Association Commissioner
2 The Court may raise the issue of subject matter
jurisdiction sua sponte. See WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller,
104 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). The Court may
dismiss an action sua sponte without notice where, as here,
Plaintiff “cannot possibly win relief.” See Gambill v. United
States, 554 Fed. App’x 558, at *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2014)
(quoting Sparling v. Hoffman Const. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th
Cir. 1998)) (failure to state a claim); Simmons v. Schwartz, 2014
WL 1370384, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2014), adopted, 2014 WL
1370760 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2014) (lack of subject matter
jurisdiction).
3 Plaintiff previously purported to sue the City of
Ventura and others for supposedly torturing Plaintiff by means of
bioelectromagnetic devices and microwaves emitted from
satellites. See Cain v. City of Ventura, CV 11-5390-DMG(E).
This Court summarily dismissed action CV 11-5390-DMG(E) as
“frivolous and fanciful” and therefore lacking in subject matter
jurisdiction.
Case 2:14-cv-05735-DMG-E Document 5 Filed 08/06/14 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:559
David Stern had assaulted the plaintiff using electronic and satellite
equipment, contaminated the plaintiff with germs, and conspired to
dictate whom she should marry; court dismissed the action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because the allegations were “so bizarre
and delusional that they [were] wholly insubstantial”); Doran v.
McGinnis, 158 F.R.D. 383, 387-89 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (dismissing paid
complaint as frivolous, where plaintiff alleged prison officials
implanted “telepathic mind control device” in his brain to control his
mind and bodily functions).
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the action is dismissed without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
DATED: August 6, 2014
_____________________________
DOLLY M. GEE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Presented this 29th
day of July, 2014, by:
____________/S/_______________
CHARLES F. EICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGEe 2:14-cv-05735-DMG-E Document 5 Filed 08/06/14 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:559
David Stern had assaulted the plaintiff using electronic and satellite
equipment, contaminated the plaintiff with germs, and conspired to
dictate whom she should marry; court dismissed the action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because the allegations were “so bizarre
and delusional that they [were] wholly insubstantial”); Doran v.
McGinnis, 158 F.R.D. 383, 387-89 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (dismissing paid
complaint as frivolous, where plaintiff alleged prison officials
implanted “telepathic mind control device” in his brain to control his
mind and bodily functions).
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the action is dismissed without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
DATED: August 6, 2014
_____________________________
DOLLY M. GEE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Presented this 29th
day of July, 2014, by:
____________/S/_______________
CHARLES F. EICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
California Central District Court
Judge: Dolly M Gee
Referred: Charles F Eick
Case #: 2:14-cv-05735
Nature of Suit 440 Civil Rights – Other Civil Rights
Cause 28:1983 Civil Rights
Case Filed: Jul 23, 2014
Terminated: Aug 06, 2014
Docket
Parties (32)
Docket last updated: 6 hours ago
Wednesday, August 06, 2014
6 JUDGMENT by Judge Dolly M. Gee. Pursuant to the “Order Dismissing Action Without Prejudice for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction,” It is Adjudged that the action is dismissed without prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (sp)
5 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee. The action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (sp)
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Dolly M. Gee and referred to Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick. (ghap)
3 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint – Related [+]1 as to Defendants Alfred Mann Foundation, Ramona Clark, Cottage Center for Advanced Imaging, Cottage Health System, Kenneth R. Daughters, Thomas C. Daughters, Dignity Health, Jeffrey Hadsall, Steven Hartzman, Kai Kinder, Arthur A. Lee, Level 3 Communications, Raymond Mastrovito, Nishant Mehta, Kathleen Ponjunas, Pueblo Radiology, Donald Rink, Sansum Clinic, Sansum Diabetes Research Institute, Ali R. Sephardi, Simonmed Imaging, Sean Snodgres, John Wrench. (ghap)
2 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint – Related [+]1 as to Defendants Pat Brady( Chief of Naval Operations, in his official capacity), Pat Brady(in his individual capacity), John O. Brennan(United States Central Intelligence Agency, in his official capacity), John O. Brennan(in his individual), Chuck Hagel(in his individual capacity), Chuck Hagel(Secretary of Defense, official capacity), John McHugh(in his individual capacity), John McHugh(as Secretary of the Army, in his official capacity), Barack H. Obama, United States Department of Defense. (ghap)
1 COMPLAINT filed against Defendants Alfred Mann Foundation, Pat Brady ( Chief of Naval Operations, in his official capacity), Pat Brady(in his individual capacity), John O. Brennan(United States Central Intelligence Agency, in his official capa), John O. Brennan(in his individual), Ramona Clark, Cottage Center for Advanced Imaging, Cottage Health System, Kenneth R. Daughters, Thomas C. Daughters, Dignity Health, Does 1 through 10, Jeffrey Hadsall, Chuck Hagel(in his individual capacity), Chuck Hagel(Secretary of Defense, official capacity), Steven Hartzman, Kai Kinder, Arthur A. Lee, Level 3 Communications, Raymond Mastrovito, John McHugh(in his individual capacity), John McHugh(as Secretary of the Army, in his official capacity), Nishant Mehta, Barack H. Obama, Kathleen Ponjunas, Pueblo Radiology, Donald Rink, Sansum Clinic, Sansum Diabetes Research Institute, Ali R. Sephardi, Simonmed Imaging, Sean Snodgres, United States Department of Defense, Unknown Federal Agents, John Wrench Case assigned to Judge Dolly M. Gee and referred to Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick.(Filing fee$400:PAID), filed by plaintiff Richard L. Cain. (ghap)
Att: 1 Part 1 Complaint,
Att: 2 Part 2 Complaint,
Att: 3 Part 3 Complaint,
Att: 4 Part 4 Complaint,
Att: 5 Part 5 Complaint,
Att: 6 Part 6 Complaint,
Att: 7 Part 7 Complaint,
Att: 8 Part 8 Complaint,
Att: 9 Part 9 Complaint,
Att: 10 Part 10 Complaint,
Att: 11 Part 11 Complaint,
Att: 12 Part 12 Complaint,
Att: 13 Part 13 Complaint,
Att: 14 Part 14 Complaint,
Att: 15 Part 15 Complaint,
Att: 16 Part 16 Complaint,
Att: 17 Part 17 Complaint,
Att: 18 Part 18 Complaint,
Att: 19 Part 19 Complaint,
Att: 20 Part 20 Complaint,
Att: 21 Part 21 Complaint,
Att: 22 Part 22 Complaint,
Att: 23 Part 23 Complaint,
Att: 24 Part 24 Complaint,
Att: 25 Part 25 Complaint,
Att: 26 Part 26 Complaint,
Att: 27 Part 27 Complaint,
Att: 28 Part 28 Complaint,
Att: 29 Part 29 Complaint and Civil Cover Sheets