Grimes v. Starnes et al

Filing 1

ORDER RETURNING COMPLAINT TO PLAINTIFF. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/27/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

JEROME L. GRIMES; and LUCY MAE
GRIMES, decedent,
Plaintiffs,

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 12-80191M CW
ORDER RETURNING
COMPLAINT TO
PLAINTIFF

v.
JAMAL STARNES, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
On December 9, 2005, this Court entered a pre-filing order

12

regarding the cases filed by Plaintiff Jerome Grimes.

13

filing order states that if Mr. Grimes files a complaint that is

14

“related to any of the following matters:

15
16
17
18
19

The pre-

(1) a diversified group of individuals who commit acts
of terror against Mr. Grimes, his family and other
citizens;
(2) an injunction against the defendants to prevent them
from kidnaping, framing, falsely imprisoning or
otherwise terrorizing Mr. Grimes, his family, and other
citizens;

20

(3) a court order for the defendants to be subjected to
a lie detector test;

21

(4) covert terrorism

22

it will not be filed unless it presents cognizable claims that are

23

not based on merely conclusory allegations.

24

complaints filed by Mr. Grimes while he is not incarcerated or

25

detained will be filed unless they contain intelligible factual

26

allegations and claims for relief.”

Second, no other

27

The Court has reviewed the instant complaint, C12-80191M,

28

filed by Mr. Grimes, on behalf of himself and a decedent, Lucy Mae

1

Grimes.

2

does not apply to this complaint because of his “in custody

3

status.”

4

detained or being held in custody and instead mailed the complaint

5

from the San Francisco General Hospital, where he appears to

6

represent that Ms. Grimes passed away on July 21, 2012.

Mr. Grimes appears to suggest that the pre-filing order

However, Mr. Grimes does not state that he is presently

The Court finds that it alleges that Defendants are engaged

8

in covert terrorism and that they conspired with a diverse group

9

of others to commit acts of terror against Mr. Grimes and others.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

It also seeks a court order for all Defendants to be subjected to

11

a lie detector test.

12

action.

13

represent others in federal court and thus Mr. Grimes may not

14

bring claims on behalf of Ms. Grimes or her estate.1

15

complaint concerns multiple matters mentioned in the pre-filing

16

order and present no cognizable causes of action, the Clerk of the

17

Court is ordered not to file it.

18

returned to Mr. Grimes.

19

Mr. Grimes alleges no cognizable causes of

In addition, pro se litigants are not permitted to

Because the

Instead, the complaint shall be

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: 2/27/2013

22

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Mr. Grimes appears to be attempting to bring the claims on
behalf of Ms. Grimes directly and not on behalf of her estate. He
does not allege that he is the personal representative of her
estate.
2