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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?