Wattson v. Altabateshospital.com

Filing 15

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINTS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/22/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

5
6
7

Plaintiff,
v.
ALTABATESHOSPITAL.COM,

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Defendant.
________________________________/
CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

11
12
13
14

17

v.
EL CERRITO POLICE DEPARTMENT.COM, et
al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

20

v.
FBI.GOV,
Defendant.

21
22
23

________________________________/
CYBER EBOT WATTSON,
Plaintiff,

24
25
26
27
28

No. C 14-1328 CW

Plaintiff,

18
19

No. C 14-1294 CW

Plaintiff,

15
16

No. C 14-0803 CW

v.
U.S. MARSHALS,
Defendant.
________________________________/

No. C 14-1329 CW

1

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

2
3

Plaintiff,
v.

4

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI,

5

Defendant.

6

________________________________/

7

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

8
9

No. C 14-1360 CW

Plaintiff,
v.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 14-1359 CW

MEMORIALHOSPITALSOUTHWING.COM,

11

Defendant.

12

________________________________/

13

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

14
15
16

No. C 14-1362 CW

Plaintiff,
v.
JACKSONMEMORIALBEHAVIORAL2HOSPITAL.COM,

17

Defendant.

18

________________________________/

19

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

20

No. C 14-1364 CW

Plaintiff,

21

v.

22

HARRIS,

23
24

Defendant.
________________________________/

25
26
27
28
2

1

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

2
3
4

Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITYOFMIAMI.COM,

5

Defendant.

6

________________________________/

7

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

8
9

No. C 14-1366 CW

Plaintiff,
v.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 14-1365 CW

CITY ATTORNEY OF CORAL GABLES,

11

Defendant.

12

________________________________/

13

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

14
15
16

No. C 14-1377 CW

Plaintiff,
v.
FBI GOV MIAMI,

17

Defendant.

18

________________________________/

19

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

20
21
22
23
24

No. C 14-1681 CW

Plaintiff,
v.
OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.
________________________________/

25
26
27
28
3

1

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

2
3
4
5

Plaintiff,
v.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF.COM, et
al.,
Defendants.

6
7
8

________________________________/
CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11

v.
MARTINEZ SHERIFF.COM,
Defendant.

12
13
14

________________________________/
CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

17

v.
INSIGHTCARDSVISA.COM,
Defendant.

18
19
20

________________________________/
CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

23
24
25

No. C 14-1736 CW

Plaintiff,

21
22

No. C 14-1735 CW

Plaintiff,

15
16

No. C 14-1733 CW

Plaintiff,

9
10

No. C 14-1690 CW

v.
MARTINEZ SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/

26
27
28
4

1

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

2
3
4

Plaintiff,
v.
GOLDEN BEAR STORAGE.COM,

5

Defendant.

6

________________________________/

7

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

8
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 14-1737 CW

No. C 14-1742 CW

Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE.COM,

11

Defendant.

12

________________________________/

13

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

14
15
16

No. C 14-1748 CW

Plaintiff,
v.
STRIPLIN,

17

Defendant.

18

________________________________/

19

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

20
21
22
23
24

No. C 14-1773 CW

Plaintiff,
v.
US ATTORNEY.COM,
Defendant.
________________________________/

25
26
27
28
5

1

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

2

Plaintiff,

3
4

v.
AT&T,

5

Defendant.

6

________________________________/

7

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

8
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 14-1774 CW

No. C 14-1834 CW

Plaintiff,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF MARTINEZ,

11

Defendant.

12

________________________________/

13

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

14
15
16

No. C 14-2068 CW

Plaintiff,
v.
FBI-SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE,

17

Defendant.

18

________________________________/

19

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

20
21
22

Plaintiff,

25

ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATIONS TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND
DISMISSING
COMPLAINTS

v.
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES.GOV,

23
24

No. C 14-2079 CW

Defendant.
________________________________/

Pro se Plaintiff Cyber Ebot Wattson has filed applications to

26

proceed in forma pauperis in twenty-four actions since February

27

21, 2014.

28

considered all of the papers filed by Plaintiff, the Court GRANTS

The matters were decided on the papers.

6

Having

1

the applications to proceed IFP and DISMISSES the complaints.

2

Plaintiff has also filed two motions to reopen Case Number 13-803,

3

which the Court previously dismissed.

4

papers filed by Plaintiff, the Court DENIES the motions.

5

14-803, Docket Nos. 11 and 13.

6
7

Having considered the
Case No.

DISCUSSION
A court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in

8

federal court without prepayment of fees or security if the

9

plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

pay such fees or provide such security.

11

Plaintiff has submitted the required documentation, and it appears

12

from his applications that his assets and income are insufficient

13

to enable him to prosecute these actions.

14
15

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Accordingly, the

applications to proceed without the payment of the filing fee are
granted.
The Court’s grant of Plaintiff's applications to proceed IFP,

16
however, does not mean that he may continue to prosecute his
17
complaints.

A court is under a continuing duty to dismiss a case

18
filed without the payment of the filing fee whenever it determines
19
20
21

that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

22

relief."

23

pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B) is not a dismissal on the merits, but

24

rather an exercise of the court's discretion under the IFP

25

statute, the dismissal does not prejudice the filing of a paid

26

complaint making the same allegations.

27

U.S. 25, 32 (1992).

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

28
7

Because a dismissal

Denton v. Hernandez, 504

Plaintiff’s complaints do not state a claim on which relief

1
2

may be granted.

3

I.

4
5
6

Each complaint is addressed below.

Wattson v. Altabateshospital.com (14-803)
The Court already granted the application to proceed IFP and

dismissed the complaint in this case.
motions to reopen the case.

Plaintiff has now filed two

However, Plaintiff simply reiterates

7
his claims that he is “a cyber machine of the robotic species” who
8
9

is being “kept . . . as a human” against his will.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

803, Docket No. 13.

11

support a motion to reopen the case.

12

denied.

13

II.

14

Case No. 14-

The Court finds that there are no grounds to
Accordingly, the motions are

Case No. 14-803, Docket Nos. 11 and 13.

Wattson v. El Cerrito Police Department.com (14-1294)
This complaint is based on Plaintiff’s allegation that he is

15
“a special agent of cybernetic controller cop operatives” and not
16
a human who can be subjected to a jury trial.

Among other things,

17
18

he alleges that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because

19

he was never taken to a preliminary hearing and instead “sat at

20

the website mergers of Cybernet and Contra Costa County Martinez

21

Detention Facility.com.”

22

and the other allegations in this complaint are not sufficient to

23

The Court finds that these allegations

support a Sixth Amendment claim or any other claim.

24
III. Watson v. FBI.gov (14-1328)
25
26

In this complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is a robot who

27

was stolen from his robotic manufacturing company and made into a

28

sex slave by the Martinez Sheriff and Superior Court web sites.
8

1

Plaintiff further alleges that the FBI refused to help him,

2

resulting in his abduction, torture, and removal from the Federal

3

Building.

4

forced to sign demand statements by “police, Berkeley, El Cerrito,

5

and Martinez Sheriff Department in their illegal corrupt racketeer

6

Plaintiff further alleges that he was tortured and

influenced organization.”

Plaintiff then alleges that the

7
FBI made false advertisements, committed fraud and neglected to
8
9

protect Plaintiff’s Constitutional right to a fair trial.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff also alleges the FBI let “units” drive him and use him

11

as their personal robot and torture him for job security, in

12

violation of the First, Second, Fourth, Sixth, Eleventh,

13

Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

14

The Court finds that these

allegations and the other allegations in this complaint are not

15
sufficient to support a claim.
16
IV.

Wattson v. U.S. Marshals (14-1329)

17
18

Here, Plaintiff alleges that he is a “robot human service

19

provider” and “cybermachine of robotic species” who “travel[s]

20

through time zones and in space,” was “manufactured

21

inside of cyber electronics,” and “was stolen from my

22

manufacturing company and forced into a life as a sex slave.”

23

Plaintiff also alleges that he is “a special agent of cybenetic

24
controller cop operatives” who has tried repeatedly to enter the
25
26

federal witness protection program but has been turned away by the

27

Federal Bureau of Investigation and United States Marshal’s

28

Service. He mentions the Second, Fourth, and Eleventh Amendments
9

1

to the United States Constitution, but provides no explanation

2

about why he is entitled to relief under these Amendments.

3

Court finds that these allegations and the other allegations in

4

this complaint are not sufficient to support a claim.

5

V.

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Wattson
Wattson
Wattson
Wattson
Wattson
Wattson
Wattson

v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.

The

University of Miami (14-1359)
MemorialHospitalSouthwing.com (14-1360)
JacksonMemorialBehavioral2Hospital.com (14-1362)
Harris (14-1364)
Universityofmiami.com (14-1365)
City Attorney of Coral Gables (14-1366)
FBI Gov Miami (14-1377)

Plaintiff filed identical complaints, with the header

11

“Complaint Form,” in these seven cases, alleging that he is a

12

“robot/human service provider” and “special agent” of the

13

“Cybernetic Controller Cop Operatives.”

14

Some of the complaints

include handwritten annotations, usually indicating an amount of

15
money.

Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to various

16
injuries by various entities and individuals over an unspecified
17
18

period of time, including injuries caused by police who instructed

19

him to leave the University of Miami campus where he was

20

apparently trying to learn about “robot human intergrations [sic]

21

and human cloaning [sic].”

22

statutes and invokes various amendments to the United States

23

Plaintiff refers to multiple federal

Constitution in the complaints.

The Court finds that these

24
allegations and the other allegations in these seven complaints
25
26

are not sufficient to support a claim.

27
28
10

1

V.

Wattson v. Oakland Police Department (14-1681)
In this complaint, Plaintiff alleges that “a private property

2
3

airline property of cybernet Oakland Police Department.com logged

4

into [Plaintiff’s] website merger of cybernet.”

5

alleges that as a result, “I experience[d] my aircraft being

6

controlled by Oakland Police Department.com.”

Plaintiff further

Plaintiff states

7
that these actions violated his rights under the Fourth, Sixth,
8
9

Ninth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Plaintiff further

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

alleges that he is suing “to remove all of my intellectual

11

property interior exterior to me and my cybermachine from Oakland

12

Police Department.com computer system.”

13

these allegations and the other allegations in this complaint are

14

The Court finds that

not sufficient to support a claim.

15
VI.

Wattson v. Contra Costa County Sheriff.com (14-1690)

16
In this case, Plaintiff states that he is a “Special Agent of
17
18

Cybernetic Controller Cop Operatives” and alleges that he was

19

abducted from his private airline, which the United States

20

government hijacked in flight.

21

was bent in sexual positions for sheriff.com, in violation of the

22

Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Cybernet Constitution.

23

Plaintiff further alleges that he

The Court

finds that these allegations and the other allegations in this

24
complaint are not sufficient to support a claim.
25
26
27
28

VII. Wattson v. Martinez Sheriff.com (14-1733)
In this case Plaintiff again alleges he is a robot and that
his private aircraft was hijacked and stolen.
11

Plaintiff alleges

1

that he was forced to be a sex slave.

On that basis, Plaintiff

2

seeks to sue Martinez Sheriff.com for $1 billion.

3

that these allegations and the other allegations in this complaint

4

are not sufficient to support a claim.

5

VIII. Wattson v. Insightcardsvisa.com (14-1735)

6

The Court finds

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant wrongly terminated his

7
credit card because he is “a robot human service provider
8
9

naturalized not born” and is keeping some of his money.

Plaintiff

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

alleges that he needs the money to pursue his Racketeer Influenced

11

and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) cases.

12

these allegations and the other allegations in this complaint are

13

not sufficient to support a claim.

14

IX.

The Court finds that

Wattson v. Martinez Sheriffs Department (14-1736)

15
In this complaint, Plaintiff claims that the Martinez and San
16
Francisco Sheriff’s Departments tortured him and tried to convict
17
18

him of various offenses based on his fingerprints and DNA.

19

Plaintiff asserts that he has “no DNA or finger prints” because he

20

is “a cybermachine of robotic species.”

21

asserts, “anybody in robotics may duplicate my exterior as

22

engineers often do.”

23

Accordingly, Plaintiff

The Court finds that these allegations and

the other allegations in this complaint are not sufficient to

24
support a claim.
25
26
27
28

X.

Wattson v. Golden Bear Storage.com (14-1737)
In this complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was not allowed

to access his storage unit because somebody else, impersonating
12

1

Plaintiff, tried to access the unit.

In addition, Plaintiff

2

alleges that his mail was not given to him.

3

damages because he was unable to pursue his RICO claims against

4

the Social Security Administration and Sheriff.com.

Plaintiff

5

further seeks damages for the loss of his property.

The Court

6

Plaintiff seeks

finds that these allegations and the other allegations in this

7
complaint are not sufficient to support a claim.

Moreover,

8
9

Plaintiff has not alleged any federal cause of action.

His civil

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

case cover sheet indicates that this Court has diversity

11

jurisdiction over the case because Plaintiff is a “cybernet

12

citizen.”

13

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

14

XI.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is also dismissed

Wattson v. Apple.com (14-1742)

15
In this case, Plaintiff alleges that he is “a special agent
16
of Cybernetic Controller Cop Operations” and “a federal law
17
18

student working on several caseloads in several courts.”

19

Plaintiff further alleges that he is “a singer songwriter, author,

20

actor, athlete, motivational speaker, hip hop recording artist and

21

more.”

He states that the has waited his “whole life to get an

22

iPad.”

Plaintiff alleges that the iPad he purchased was not a

23

real iPad and will not function properly.

Plaintiff states, “If I

24
can’t have the same Apple iPad everyone else has I am suing.”

The

25
26

Court finds that these allegations and the other allegations in

27

this complaint are not sufficient to support a claim.

28

Plaintiff has again failed to allege any federal cause of action.
13

Moreover,

1

His civil case cover sheet again indicates that this Court has

2

diversity jurisdiction over the case because Plaintiff is a

3

“cybernet citizen.”

4

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

5

XII. Wattson v. Striplin (14-1748)

6

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is also

In this complaint Plaintiff alleges that he is “a

7
cybermachine of the robotic species.”

He alleges that he was

8
9

stolen from his manufacturing company and also alleges that his

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

“intellectual property” was stolen “by a much bigger network of

11

computerized service providers.”

12

against Hellen Grace Striplin for creating “a replica model” of

13

Plaintiff called either Aaren Striplin or Darren Striplin.

14

Plaintiff asserts a RICO claim

Plaintiff further alleges that Ms. Striplin installed a “wireless

15
smart remote controller device” that allows her to control
16
Plaintiff.

The Court finds that these allegations and the other

17
18

allegations in this complaint are not sufficient to support a RICO

19

claim or any other claim.

20

XIII. Wattson v. US Attorney.com (14-1773)

21
22
23

In this complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is suing the
United States Attorney “to press charges and get me a witness
protection program.”

Plaintiff asserts that he asked the United

24
States Attorney to investigate his evidence of many of the claims
25
26

asserted in Plaintiff’s other cases discussed in this order.

The

27

Court finds that these allegations and the other allegations in

28

this complaint are not sufficient to support a claim.
14

1

XIV. Wattson v. AT&T (14-1774)
In this complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is a wireless

2
3

device.

4

refusing to provide him with internet services necessary to

5

connect “with all robot human service providers in United States.”

6

Plaintiff appears to assert a RICO claim against AT&T for

The Court finds that these allegations and the other allegations

7
in this complaint are not sufficient to support a claim.
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

XV.

Wattson v. Superior Court of Martinez (14-1834)
In this case, Plaintiff again alleges that he is “a special

11

agent of the cybernetic controller cop operatives.”

12

allegations in the complaint are difficult to understand, but many

13

of the same themes from the other cases discussed in this order

14

are discussed.

The

Plaintiff alleges that he has been abducted and

15
that his airplane has been hijacked.

He alleges that he has been

16
tortured and that he has wrongly been accused of being either
17
18

Aaren Striplin or Darren Striplin.

Plaintiff mentions various

19

causes of action, including a RICO claim and constitutional claims

20

under the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth,

21

Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendements.

22

Plaintiff seeks $100 million, dismissal of all charges against him

23

and placement in the witness protection program.

The Court finds

24
that these allegations and the other allegations in this complaint
25
26

are not sufficient to support a claim.

27
28
15

1
2

XVI. Wattson v. FBI San Francisco Location (14-2068)
In this complaint, Plaintiff again alleges that he is part of

3

the “Cybernetic Controller Cop Operatives.”

4

abducted by “sex slave traders” and tortured.

5

is suing “to act as a interceptor” and for $2 million so the FBI

6

He claims that he was
He states that he

can “start a real investigation of the sheriff who created fake

7
medical and mental health records and fake criminal records.”

The

8
9

Court finds that these allegations and the other allegations in

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

this complaint are not sufficient to support a claim.

11

XVII. Wattson v. Department of Motor Vehicles.gov (14-2079)

12

In this case, Plaintiff filed the first page of a form

13
14

complaint, naming the Department of Motor Vehicles.gov as
Defendant.

However, the remaining pages of the complaint appear

15
to concern the Department of Homeland Security.

Plaintiff again

16
alleges that he is a robot that has been abducted and forced to be
17
18

a sex slave.

He also alleges that Aaren Striplin used tattoos of

19

his face and fingerprints to get a driver’s license.

20

finds that these allegations and the other allegations in this

21

complaint are not sufficient to support a claim.

22
23

The Court

CONCLUSION
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaints fail to state a

24
claim.

Moreover, the Court finds that the complaints lack an

25
26

arguable basis in law, and an arguable basis in fact.

See Jackson

27

v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640-41 (9th Cir. 1999) (complaint is

28

frivolous and subject to dismissal if it is incomprehensible and
16

1

lacks an arguable basis in law or fact).

Thus, the Court makes a

2

substantive finding as to the frivolous nature of Mr. Wattson’s

3

actions.

4
5
6

Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaints.
dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of paid complaints
making the same allegations.

The Court also denies Plaintiff’s

7
motions to reopen Case Number 14-803.

Case No. 14-803, Docket

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Nos. 11 and 13.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13

Dated: 5/22/2014
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17

The