Carter v. O' Carrol et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying (8) Motion for temporary restraining order in case no. 3:12-cv-740; terminating all other pending motions; dismissing both cases (3:12-cv-740 and 3:12-cv-741) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; directing Clerk to close the files (directing finance to return filing fee from 3:12-cv-740). Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 8/21/2012.(SRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

RONALD CARTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:12-cv-740-J-32JRK

PATRICK P. O’CARROLL, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

RONALD CARTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:12-cv-741-J-32TEM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
___________________________________
ORDER
These related cases came before the Court for review upon the filing of pro se
plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (filed as Doc. 8 in the 3:12-cv-740 case)
in which plaintiff seeks to restrain defendants (who include, among others, the Inspector
General of the Social Security Administration, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, state court judges, prosecutors, various other government employees and
private individuals and companies, including Kentucky Fried Chicken) from stalking and
harassing plaintiff by, among other things, intimidation through gunfire, harassing him, his
roommates and his animals by the exhaust and engine sounds of motorized vehicles,
directing bright lights at plaintiff’s security cameras and in plaintiff’s direction while he is

driving, throwing dye packs in his pool, and communicating with friends, relatives, employers
or acquaintances of plaintiff’s roommate Laura Parks (who is also named as a defendant).
Plaintiff alleges these actions are causing him physical and mental health problems, financial
problems, and relationship problems and that, unless restrained, these defendants will cause
further damage to his physical and psychological condition and will have more opportunity
to steal, erase, alter and manipulate the evidence he has against them.
The amended complaint in case no. 3:12-cv-740 alleges that plaintiff’s first, fourth,
fifth, ninth and fourteenth amendment rights, along with the protections afforded by 42
U.S.C. § 1983, are being violated by defendants’ actions. The basic gist of plaintiff’s 51 page
amended complaint is that he suffered a work-related injury in 1999 and applied for social
security disability benefits. Plaintiff alleges that although he was awarded supplemental
security income benefits in 2001, personnel from his hearing before the Social Security
Administration began harassing and stalking plaintiff and, assisted by the FBI, are now
engaging in illegal activities including “stalking, intimidation, threats, disruptions, surreptitious
entries/burglaries, invasion of privacy, improper use of informants, electronic audio and video
surv[eil]lance (telephone wire taps, bugs, cameras) in [plaintiff’s] home, pois[o]ning resulting
in the death of two dogs, BB gun shooting of one cat and one dog . . . tampering with bank
accounts and credit cards . . . sleep depr[i]vation, constant missing mail and many other
violations of [plaintiff’s] rights . . . .” Doc. 5, Amended Complaint, filed in 3:12-cv-740, at p.
5. Plaintiff alleges these actions are intended to scare him into giving up his disability
benefits (which he apparently continues to receive).

2

In his other case (3:12-cv-741), plaintiff is suing the United States under the Federal
Tort Claims Act alleging that “Cooperative Disability Investigators” from the Social Security
Administration are violating his rights by stalking, intimidating and intentionally inflicting
severe emotional distress on him, committing “burglari[es], trespasses, sleep depr[i]vation,
invasions of privacy, improper use of informants, pois[o]ning of 2 dogs, BB shooting of cats
and dogs, restricting [his] right to travel, interfering with medical care, U.S. Mail services,
electronic audio and video surv[eil]lance, threats, gross negligence . . . tampering with bank
accounts and credit cards, using [plaintiff’s] roommate in an informant agent contractor type
of way, and other Constitutional violations, state statute violations, Florida Constitutional
violations.” Doc. 1, Complaint, filed in 3:12-cv-740, at pp.3-4.
In the first filed case (3:12-cv-740), plaintiff initially paid the filing fee but has since
moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (presumably to effectuate service of process).
In the second filed case (3:12-cv-741), plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
at the time he filed his complaint. The Court also notes that plaintiff filed a case in this court
last year against an assistant state attorney for failure to properly investigate and prosecute
a person plaintiff suspected of committing crimes against him. See Carter v. Young, Case
No. 3:11-cv-1085-J-34MCR. That case was dismissed after the Court determined plaintiff
relied on “meritless legal theories.” Id. at Doc. 12, p. 2 (adopted by Doc. 14).
Although rare, the Court must occasionally dismiss even a paid complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction based on frivolity without waiting for defendants to respond. Upon
review of plaintiff’s filings, including the DVDs attached as exhibits, the Court finds both
cases are due to be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on frivolity. “The
3

test for federal jurisdiction is not whether the cause of action is one on which the claimant
can recover. Rather, the test is whether the cause of action is so patently without merit as
to justify the court’s dismissal for want of jurisdiction.” McGinnis v. Ingram Equip. Co., Inc.,
918 F.2d 1491, 1494 (11th Cir. 1990) (en banc). In Morris v. Bush, Case 1:08-cv-208-MPAK, 2008 WL 5231843 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 2008), the court discussed the circumstances upon
which sua sponte dismissals of paid complaints are permitted and dismissed the case before
it, finding the plaintiff’s numerous claims had no basis in fact, were clearly removed from
reality and were patently frivolous. Id. at *1. In Norton v. FBI, Case ED CV 08-1829-VAP,
2010 WL 431367 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2010), a case whose allegations were strikingly similar
to those in the cases here, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s “series of bizarre and vague
allegations” against the FBI on grounds of frivolity where the plaintiff claimed that the FBI had
seized sensitive documents belonging to the plaintiff that constituted evidence of crimes by
the FBI, including their practices of illegal eavesdropping on the plaintiff. Id. at *2. In Norton,
the court explained that “[d]ismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is proper where the
federal claim is ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of [the court], or
otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.’” Id. at *6 (citing
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t., 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998). The court explained that
“[e]ven a paid complaint” “does not confer subject matter jurisdiction” “if it is obviously
frivolous.” Id. See also, Tyler v. Carter, 151 F.R.D. 537, 540 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
Plaintiff’s claims are removed from reality and are patently frivolous for purposes of
assessing subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, sua sponte dismissal of both cases is required
here.
4

Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 8 filed in 3:12-cv-740) is
denied. Both of plaintiff’s cases (3:12-cv-740, 3:12-cv-741) are dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk shall terminate all other pending motions and close the
files. However, given that plaintiff is on Social Security disability, the Clerk is directed to
return the filing fee to plaintiff from Case No. 3:12-cv-740.1
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 21st day of August, 2012.

s.
Copies:
pro se plaintiff
Finance

1

Plaintiff is advised that the Finance Office of the Court will mail him a check but it may
take several weeks before he receives it.
5