Bivolarevic v. U.S. CIA

Filing 86

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong denying 85 Motion for Disclosure of Fisa Surveillance. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2017)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

OAKLAND DIVISION

4
5 VESNA BIVOLAREVIC,

Case No: C 09-4620 SBA

6

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO DISCLOSE FISA
SURVEILLANCE

7

Plaintiff,
vs.

8 U.S. CIA,
9

Dkt. 85
Defendant.

10
11

Plaintiff Vesna Bivolarevic filed the instant pro se action against the CIA (i.e., the Central

12

Intelligence Agency), alleging that she has been subjected to “voice to skull technology (in

13

different forms) since . . . January 2005.” Compl. at 1. On March 8, 2010, the Court granted

14

Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15

12(b)(1). Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal as

16

untimely on December 9, 2010.

17

This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Disclose FISA Surveillance,

18

filed August 7, 2017. Dkt. 85. As the Court previously found, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the

19

existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Having failed to timely appeal that ruling, the Court’s

20

prior dismissal is final. Because subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, no further substantive action

21

is appropriate in this case. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998) (a

22

federal court cannot reach the merits of any dispute unless it has subject matter jurisdiction to

23

adjudicate the issues presented). Accordingly,

24
25
26
27
28

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion to Disclose FISA Surveillance is
DENIED. Plaintiff shall not submit any further filings in this closed case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 9/6/17

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
Senior United States District Judge