Carolyn Elizabeth Griffin v. Ventura Military Base et al

Filing 74

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying (36) Motion ; denying (38) Motion ; denying (40) Motion for Permanent Injunction; denying (42) Motion ; denying (44) Motion ; denying (46) Motion ; denying (48) Motion ; denying (50) Motion ; denying as moot (52) Motion to Appear by Telephone; denying (5) Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying (7) Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying (9) Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying (10) Motion ; denying (11) Motion ; denying (12) Motion to S eal; denying (13) Motion to Seal; denying (14) Motion to Seal; denying (15) Motion to Seal; denying (16) Motion to Seal; denying (17) Motion ; denying (21) Motion ; denying (23) Motion ; denying (25) Motion ; denying (27) Motion ; denying (29) Motion ; denying (31) Motion ; denying (34) Motion in case 5:15-cv-00643-LHK; denying as moot (2) Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis in case 5:15-cv-01914-LHK (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

CAROLYN ELIZABETH GRIFFIN,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

Case Nos. 15-CV-00643-LHK
15-CV-01803-LHK
15-CV-01914-LHK

v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
PENDING MOTIONS AND
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINTS WITH PREJUDICE

VENTURA MILITARY BASE, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Since February 11, 2015, pro se plaintiff Carolyn Elizabeth Griffin (“Plaintiff”) has filed

19

multiple 740-page complaints in this district against defendants Ventura Military Base and the

20

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (collectively, “Defendants”). See Case Nos. 15-00643

21

(N.D. Cal.), 15-01803 (N.D. Cal.), 15-01914 (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff filed a fourth 740-page

22

complaint in the Central District of California. See Case No. 15-00573 (C.D. Cal.).

23

Each of these prolix complaints alleges, inter alia: (1) Plaintiff was in charge of the “Arctic

24

Oil Project” when her DNA allegedly was obtained unlawfully and “sent for input into the

25

military, satellite space based technology, Ventura Military Base computer system with criminal

26

intent, to commit numerous crimes”; (2) “five lawyers” working on behalf of Plaintiff and others

27
28

1
Case Nos. 15-CV-00643-LHK; 15-CV-01803-LHK; 15-CV-01914-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINTS
WITH PREJUDICE

1

involved in the “Arctic Oil Project” allegedly were murdered, either by “hit operators” or by

2

“direct hits to their hearts by the codes sent by the Fort Meade-NSA Army, to the Ventura Military

3

Base department where the employees input the codes into the military computer system, that

4

caused a heart attack for their death”; (3) Defendants and/or other federal agencies or employees

5

attempted to stalk, murder, kidnap, sexually abuse, or frame Plaintiff, and allegedly rape her on

6

television; (4) Plaintiff has been tortured by means of “electromagnetic vice head pressure force,”

7

“electromagnetic weaponry blasts,” “electromagnetic weaponry” that “target[s] [Plaintiff’s] brain

8

stem,” “micro-waves,” “satellite space based technology,” “computer talk,” and “whisper talk”;

9

(5) the “Fort Meade Army Base NSA Division,” in a conspiracy with the Department of
Homeland Security and possibly other agencies, allegedly sent codes, “along with other terrorist

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

acts with genocide intent,” purportedly in order to control victims, steal assets, commit genocide,

12

and kidnap Plaintiff or her family “with heinous very sick satanic involvement”; (6) the “Fort

13

Meade-NSA Army” set up bazookas in Plaintiff’s neighborhood to blow up Plaintiff’s residence

14

or her yacht, and later allegedly used bazookas, napalm, or rocket launchers against Plaintiff on

15

the freeway, in stores, or at her yacht; (7) the U.S. Army engaged in “Satanism group rape” during

16

which victims allegedly were beaten, thrown over a cliff, and murdered “during satanic occult

17

ritual ceremonies where the heart is ripped out of the chest”; (8) the “Fort Meade-NSA Army” sent

18

fighter jets to drop bombs on Plaintiff’s house and yacht, but supposedly were prevented from

19

doing so by the Air Force; (9) the National Security Agency and Department of Homeland

20

Security attempted to arrest Plaintiff and have her raped and murdered in a California jail; (10)

21

Defendants and others used satellite-based electromagnetic “voice on the skull” technology on

22

Plaintiff, induced dreams to suggest injury or death, induced pornographic dreams, and tortured

23

Plaintiff by purported “non-stop computer talk”; and (11) Defendants and others allegedly used

24

sexual “computer talk” on men with whom Plaintiff attempted to conduct business relationships,

25

purportedly causing the men to “think completely wrong” about Plaintiff and ruining Plaintiff’s

26
27
28

2
Case Nos. 15-CV-00643-LHK; 15-CV-01803-LHK; 15-CV-01914-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINTS
WITH PREJUDICE

1
2

business. ECF No. 1 at 21-23, 32, 35, 39-45, 60, 82; ECF No. 1-1 at 7, 16, 22, 26-27.1
In addition to these complaints, Plaintiff has filed twenty-nine motions over the past few

3

months seeking various forms of relief related to the above allegations. See ECF Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,

4

10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52. For

5

example, on March 19, 2015, Plaintiff requested an order from the Court for “immediate early

6

release of . . . , in one lump sum, after taxes, Two Billion, five hundred Million (after taxes) USD”

7

from the U.S. Treasury. ECF No. 21 at 2.2

8

As the foregoing makes clear, Plaintiff’s allegations are patently frivolous. Dismissal is
therefore appropriate for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better

10

Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (holding that a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

claims that are “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or

12

otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy” (internal quotation

13

marks omitted)); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A paid complaint

14

that is obviously frivolous does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction, and may be

15

dismissed sua sponte . . . .” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Reviewing

16

allegations identical to those presented here, U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell

17

dismissed Plaintiff’s lawsuit in the Central District. See Case No. 15-00573 (C.D. Cal.), ECF No.

18

5. In so doing, Judge O’Connell adopted U.S. Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick’s conclusion that

19

“the allegations of the present Complaint are frivolous and delusional.” Id. at 3. The allegations

20

are no different here.

21

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES all of Plaintiff’s pending motions and, because

22

amendment would be futile, DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaints in Case Nos.

23

15-00643 (N.D. Cal.), 15-01803 (N.D. Cal.), and 15-01914 (N.D. Cal.). See, e.g., Cain v. City of

24
25

1

Unless otherwise indicated, ECF references are to the docket of Case No. 15-00643.
On March 30, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for an emergency temporary
restraining order and referred Plaintiff to the Federal Legal Assistance Self-Help Center
(“FLASH”) at the San Jose Courthouse for assistance. ECF No. 57.
3
2

26
27
28

Case Nos. 15-CV-00643-LHK; 15-CV-01803-LHK; 15-CV-01914-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINTS
WITH PREJUDICE

1

Ventura, No. CV 11-5390-DMG E, 2011 WL 4403290, at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2011)

2

(dismissing with prejudice a plaintiff’s complaint alleging “surveillance by military jets and

3

helicopters” and “purported torture by means of bioelectromagnetic devices and microwaves

4

emitted from satellites”), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 11-5390-DMG E, 2011

5

WL 4403288 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2011); Bivolarevic v. U.S. CIA, No. C 09-4620 SBA, 2010 WL

6

890147, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2010) (dismissing with prejudice a plaintiff’s complaint alleging

7

“that the CIA has subjected her to ‘voice to skull technology’ which it is using as a ‘mind control

8

weapon’” because “[t]hese are precisely the type of frivolous claims that are subject to dismissal

9

for lack of jurisdiction”).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The Clerk shall close the case files.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14
15

Dated: July 22, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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

4
Case Nos. 15-CV-00643-LHK; 15-CV-01803-LHK; 15-CV-01914-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINTS
WITH PREJUDICE