Watson v. Yuseff et al

Filing 17

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION. Signed by Judge Saundra B Armstrong on 7/25/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7 JACQUELINE WATSON,

Plaintiff,

8
9

Case No: C 17-3888 SBA
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

vs.

10 YUSEFF YUSEFF, et al.,
11

Defendants.

12
13
14

On July 10, 2017, Plaintiff Jacqueline Watson, proceeding pro se, filed the instant

15

action against Dr. Yuseff Yuseff and William Dugoni as Defendants. The core allegations

16

of the short Complaint are as follows:

17
18
19
20
21

I need you to look into the illegal computer chip that was put
into my ovaries in 2007 year and I have some camera that are
inside of me (Illegal)[.]
I’m afraid for my life and my kids Jamila Cooksey and
Rasheeda Slaam[.]
[N]eed a Judge to see me ASAP[.]
[N]eed to move out of the Richerson Apt 365 Fulton Street
#312 San Francisco, CA 94102.

22

Compl. at 1, Dkt. 1. Along with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a request to proceed in forma

23

pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. 3.

24

The action was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth LaPorte, who

25

granted Plaintiff’s IFP request, but indicated that the matter of the issuance of summons

26

and service would be addressed separately. Dkt. 7. Plaintiff subsequently declined to

27

consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, which resulted in reassignment of the

28

action to this Court along with recommendation by Magistrate Judge LaPorte to dismiss the

1
2

action as frivolous. Dkt. 13, 16.1
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), federal courts are authorized to pre-screen claims

3

filed IFP prior to service and to dismiss the case at any time if the court determines, inter

4

alia, that the action is frivolous or malicious. A court may dismiss a suit for frivolousness

5

if the complaint presents an “indisputably meritless legal theory” or if the “factual

6

contentions are clearly baseless,” such as when they describe “fantastic or delusional

7

scenarios.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). A finding of frivolousness

8

is a “decision entrusted to the discretion of the court entertaining the in forma pauperis

9

petition.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). When a court dismisses a

10

complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend with directions as

11

to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the pleadings that the

12

deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,

13

1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

14

Here, Plaintiff’s claims that some unidentified person or persons implanted a

15

computer chip into her ovaries and placed a camera inside of her are facially untenable.

16

E.g., Curtis v. FBI, No. 216CV01586RFBPAL, 2017 WL 2695297, at *2 (D. Nev. June 21,

17

2017) (finding the plaintiff’s allegations that the FBI “used biologic pathogens and

18

biological chemicals and weapons on him and put cables and electrical DNA strips on him

19

to electrify him 24-hours a day” were delusional and subject to dismissal); Carrasco v. U.S.

20

Gov’t Justice Dep’t Strike Force, 792 F. Supp. 603 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (dismissing IFP action

21

where the government allegedly surgically placed a monitoring device in plaintiff’s brain to

22

record his dreams for law enforcement agencies and made him an experiment for sex

23

therapy); Golden v. Clinton, No. C 94-0499 EFL, 1994 WL 118280, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar.

24

23, 1994) (dismissing IFP complaint which alleged a “fantastic and delusional scenario in

25

which various public and private officials have conspired to control and harass him

26
1

Typically, a party has fourteen days to object to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, since the action has been reassigned,
the Court independently exercises its discretion under § 1915(e)(2) to review the
28 Complaint.
27

-2-

1

remotely through electronic and ‘telemetric’ devices”). Given the fantastical nature of

2

Plaintiff’s claims in this action, the Court dismisses the instant Complaint. See Denton,

3

504 U.S. at 32-33 (holding that the court may dismiss claims that “rise to the level of the

4

irrational or the wholly incredible”). Because no amendment would cure such deficiency,

5

said dismissal is without leave to amend.

6

Finally, for the benefit of Plaintiff, the Court notes that because a dismissal under

7

§ 1915 “is not a dismissal on the merits, but rather an exercise of the court’s discretion

8

under the in forma pauperis statute, the dismissal does not prejudice the filing of a paid

9

complaint making the same allegations.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 34. Accordingly,

10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the instant action is DISMISSED without leave

11

to amend, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The instant dismissal is without

12

prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to bring her claims in a paid complaint. The Clerk shall close

13

the file and terminate any pending matters. The Court certifies that any appeal taken from

14

this ruling would not be in “good faith” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 07/25/17

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
Senior United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-