Johnson v. Gore

Filing 31

ORDER: The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant is Granted. (ECF No. 27 ). The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 06/22/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAMELA T. JOHNSON,

Case No.: 17cv588-WQH-MDD
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER

SHERIFF WILLIAM DAVID
GORE

15

Defendant.

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

HAYES, Judge:
The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Sheriff
William David Gore. (ECF No. 27).
On March 23, 2017, Plaintiff Pamela T. Johnson initiated this action by filing a
Complaint against Defendant Sheriff William David Gore. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant stalked and harassed Plaintiff and “engaged in guerilla warfare against me
and my family.” (ECF No. 1 at 2). Plaintiff’s Complaint includes allegations that she “was
hunted for sport and chemically attacked non-stop 24/7 with odorless, colorless agents
seemingly designed to my own personal DNA,” that Defendant “caused her to contract
skin cancer because they were accessing our roof from the neighbors place and putting
something down the chimney that caused sparking while we had a fire going” which caused
1
17cv588-WQH-MDD

1

an ember to become lodged in her forehead, and that Defendant “strategically positioned a

2

heavy roast in the freezer door knowing I would be the one to open the freezer[.]”

3

No. 1 at 2). Plaintiff seeks three billion dollars in damages and various forms of injunctive

4

relief.

(ECF

5

On March 26, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

6

and Rule 12(b)(1). Defendant contends that the Court cannot conclude on the basis of

7

Plaintiff’s pleadings that it has subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant contends that the

8

Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the allegations

9

are implausible and lack an arguable basis in fact or law. Defendant contends that

10

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by California’s two-year statute of limitations. Defendant

11

contends that Plaintiff should be denied any leave to amend because this and her other

12

federal filings1 demonstrate that amendment would be futile.

13

On April 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed a letter stating that she was “in receipt of Sheriff

14

Gore’s San Diego County taxpayer funded and provided lawyer’s reply to my allegations

15

and accusations against Sheriff Gore.” (ECF No. 29 at 1). Plaintiff asserts that her

16

allegations are “extremely serious, true, and verifiable” and reiterates her concerns that she

17

“was under extreme surveillance and constant[] assault.” Id.

18

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for “failure to state a

19

claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil

20

Procedure 8(a) provides: “A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain ... a short

21
22

27

Courts may take judicial notice of “proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal
judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” U.S. ex rel. Robinson
Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal
quotations omitted). The Court takes judicial notice of four other cases filed by Plaintiff in federal district
court: (1) Johnson v. Madison County DA Broussard, et al, Case No. 5:17-CV-00388 (ND AL, 2017); (2)
Johnson v. Obama, Case No. 5:17-CV-00466 (ND AL, 2017); (3) Johnson v. Comey, et al., Case No.
5:17-CV-00435 (ND AL, 2017); (4) Johnson v. Wal-Mart Stores, et al., Case No. 5:17-CV-00675 (ND
AL, 2017).

28

17cv588-WQH-MDD

23
24
25
26

1

2

1

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.

2

Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate where the complaint lacks a

3

cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. See

4

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To sufficiently state

5

a claim to relief and survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint “does not need detailed

6

factual allegations” but the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

7

above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “[A]

8

plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more

9

than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action

10

will not do.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). The standard used to evaluate a motion

11

to dismiss is a liberal one, particularly when the action has been filed pro se. Estelle v.

12

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 (1976). However, even a “liberal interpretation ... may not supply

13

elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of

14

Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

15

In this case, the allegations of the Complaint are unintelligible and lack an arguable

16

basis in law or fact. Plaintiff fails to provide factual allegations that plausibly support a

17

cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri, 901 F.2d at 699; see also Baurle v. Baurle, 703 F.

18

App’x 611, 612 (9th Cir. 2017) (“The district court properly dismissed [the] action as

19

frivolous because [the] claims lacked any arguable basis in law or fact.”). The motion to

20

dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted. The Court further concludes that any

21

amendment would be futile. See, e.g., Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656

22

F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A] district court may dismiss without leave where a

23

plaintiff’s proposed amendments would fail to cure the pleading deficiencies and

24

amendment would be futile.”). Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Complaint without

25

leave to amend.

26

///

27
28

3
17cv588-WQH-MDD

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant is

2

GRANTED. (ECF No. 27). The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice and without leave

3

to amend.

4

Dated: June 22, 2018

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
17cv588-WQH-MDD