Grimes v. Doe

Filing 1

ORDER RETURNING COMPLAINTS TO PLAINTIFF. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/7/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2014)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

JEROME L. GRIMES,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8

v.
SERRAMONTE CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

________________________________/
JEROME L. GRIMES,

14

v.
SERRAMONTE CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

________________________________/
JEROME L. GRIMES,

20

v.
EDWIN (DOE), et al.,
Defendants.

21
22
23

________________________________/
JEROME L. GRIMES,
Plaintiff,

24
25
26
27
28

No. C 14-80201M CW

Plaintiff,

18
19

No. C 14-80200M CW

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. C 14-80199M CW

v.
JOHN DOE, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/

No. C 14-80202M CW

1

JEROME L. GRIMES,
Plaintiff,

2
3
4

v.
EDWIN (DOE), et al.,
Defendants.

5
6
7

________________________________/
JEROME L. GRIMES,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No. C 14-80204M CW

Plaintiff,

8
9

No. C 14-80203M CW

v.
DALY CITY POLICE OFFICER K.
MATTOS, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12

________________________________/

13

JEROME L. GRIMES,

14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,
v.

No. C 14-80205M CW
ORDER RETURNING
COMPLAINTS TO
PLAINTIFF

OFFICER K. MATTOS, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
On December 9, 2005, this Court entered a pre-filing order

20

regarding the cases filed by Plaintiff Jerome Grimes.

21

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

22

“related to any of the following matters:

23
24
25
26
27
28

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;
(3) a court order for the defendants to be subjected to
a lie detector test;
2

(4) covert terrorism

1

it will not be filed unless it presents cognizable claims that are
2
not based on merely conclusory allegations.

Second, no other

3
complaints filed by Mr. Grimes while he is not incarcerated or
4
detained will be filed unless they contain intelligible factual
5
allegations and claims for relief.”
6
The Court has reviewed the above-captioned complaints filed
7
by Mr. Grimes and finds that they shall not be filed because they
8
relate to matters described by the pre-filing order or fail to
9
contain intelligible factual allegations and claims for relief.
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

I.

Case Nos. 14-80199 and 14-80200

11
The complaints in these cases allege Fourth Amendment claims
12
against the Serramonte Center, Universal Protective Services,
13
Radio Shack and employees of Universal Protective Services and
14
Radio Shack.

Each of these Defendants is a private actor.

15
Plaintiff may not bring a Fourth Amendment claim against them
16
unless he can show that they were acting under color of state law.
17
Johnson v. Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 1997).
18
Plaintiff has made no such allegation.

The complaint does not

19
contain intelligible factual allegations and claims for relief.
20
Accordingly, it shall not be filed.
21
II.

Case Nos. 14-80201, 14-80202, 14-80203 and 14-80204

22
The Court finds that the complaints in these cases shall not
23
be filed because they allege that Defendants are engaged in covert
24
terrorism.

Two of the cases, 14-80201 and 14-80204 also seek a

25
court order for Defendants to be subjected to a lie detector test.
26
Mr. Grimes alleges no cognizable causes of action in these
27
complaints.
28
3

1
2

III. Case No. 14-80205
In this case, Plaintiff alleges a Fourth Amendment claim

3

against two Daly City police officers.

4

in this complaint concern various Radio Shack employees.

5

complaint does not contain intelligible factual allegations and

6

claims for relief.

9

The

Accordingly, it shall not be filed.

7
8

However, the facts alleged

CONCLUSION
Because the above-captioned complaints concern multiple
matters mentioned in the pre-filing order, present no cognizable

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

cause of action or fail to contain intelligible factual

11

allegations and claims for relief, the Clerk of the Court is

12

ordered not to file them.

13

returned to Mr. Grimes.

14

Instead, the complaints shall be

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

Dated: 8/7/2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4