McDaniel v. United States et al

Filing 11

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/1/15: The Court certifies that plaintiff's appeal is frivolous. (cc: USCA) (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TANYA GRACE MCDANIEL,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-01113-TLN-AC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

UNITED STATES, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On August 18, 2015, this Court dismissed Plaintiff Tanya McDaniel’s (“Plaintiff”) lawsuit

18

with prejudice, and entered judgment. (ECF Nos. 5, 6.) Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, (ECF

19

No. 7), and the Ninth Circuit has referred the matter back to this court “for the limited purpose of

20

determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or whether the

21

appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.” (ECF No. 9 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Hooker

22

v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (revocation of forma pauperis status is

23

appropriate where district court finds the appeal to be frivolous)).)

24

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that she is the victim of a vast conspiracy between a plethora

25

of celebrities and politicians who have formed a group called “the Illuminati.” (ECF No. 1 at 2–

26

5.) Plaintiff alleges that this group has engaged in a systemic campaign to humiliate, mock, and

27

discredit her for reasons she does not understand. (ECF No. 1 at 4–5.) This campaign has, at

28

times, taken the form of coded insults conveyed through witchcraft, news broadcasts, and music
1

1

lyrics by popular artists including Beyonce and Taylor Swift. (ECF No. 1 at 7, 8, 13.) Plaintiff

2

alleges these insults have caused her tremendous emotional distress. (ECF No. 1 at 15.) Plaintiff

3

also alleges that she is related to a number of individuals involved in the conspiracy, including

4

President Barack Obama, Halle Berry, and Aretha Franklin. (ECF No. 1 at 14.)

5

On August 18, 2015, this Court held that these facts were so incredible they need not be

6

accepted as true, dismissing her complaint with prejudice because leave to amend would have

7

been futile. (ECF Nos. 4, 5.) This Court is aware of no good-faith, non-frivolous basis for an

8

appeal of this ruling; the facts alleged do not state a claim as they rise to the level of the irrational

9

and wholly incredible.

10
11
12
13

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A), the
Court certifies that plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 1, 2015

14

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2