Ayres v. Obama et al

Filing 15

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS. Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 10/4/13. (gls, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
VANESSIAH AYRES; C/O REBECCA
AYRES; C/O ANTHONY DURGANS,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA,
)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
)
INVESTIGATION, DEPARTMENT OF )
HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT )
OF VETERAN’S AFFAIRS, BRITISH )
AIRWAYS, CLARKS SHOES, DELTA )
AIRLINES, UNIVERSITY OF
)
HAWAII, GENERAL GROWTH
)
PROPERTIES, HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC )
COMPANY, DARLANI APARTMENTS
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

CIVIL NO. 13-00371 SOM/RLP
ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING
FEES OR COSTS

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS
On July 26, 2013, Plaintiff Vanessiah Ayres, proceding
pro se, filed a Complaint against President Barack Obama, the
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), the Department of
Veteran’s Affairs, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”),
Clarks Shoes, British Airways, and Delta Airlines.

ECF No. 1.

Ayres also filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of
Fees.

ECF No. 4.

This court screened the Complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915 and issued an order on August 8, 2013, finding that
while Ayres had demonstrated an inability to pay court fees, she

had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
ECF No. 5.

This court then gave Ayres leave to amend her

Complaint.

On September 16, 2013, Ayres filed her amended

Complaint in this court, now adding the University of Hawaii at
Manoa, General Growth Properties, Hawaiian Electric Company and
the Darlani Apartments as defendants.

ECF No. 12.

Almost all of Ayres’s claims arise from an alleged
conspiracy between the FBI and other Defendants to disrupt her
and her family’s life.

Id.

Although the amended Complaint names

new defendants and adds greater detail regarding Ayres’s
misfortunes, her allegations and claims are substantially the
same as those in her original Complaint.
In addition to the allegations contained in her
original Complaint, Ayres now adds Defendants General Growth
Properties, Hawaiian General Electric Company and the Darlani
Apartments as co-conspirators in her original claims against the
FBI, for allegedly aiding the FBI in surveillance of her family.
ECF No. 12 ¶ I.

Ayres brings a claim against the President for

authorizing this surveillance.

Id.

Ayres also details incidents

in which flight plans were altered or cancelled by British
Airways and Delta Airlines, and states that these incidents were
part of the alleged conspiracy.

Id.

Finally, Ayres brings what

appears to be a free-standing and unrelated claim against the
Department of Veterans Affairs, alleging that her survivor’s

2

pension has not been not paid because of race discrimination, in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.

As with her conspiracy-based

claims, Ayres does not allege sufficient factual content in her
discrimination claim from which the court can infer any basis for
the Department of Veterans Affairs’ liability.
Ayres fails to remedy the central problem this court
identified in its August 8 Order: Ayres’s claims regarding the
conspiracy against her and her family are not facially plausible
because she fails to “plead[ any] factual content that [would]
allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009).

Ashcroft v.

Ayres details many misfortunes

she and her family have suffered, but is unable to adduce facts
tending to show that Defendants were in any way responsible for
these hardships.
This court has previously given Ayres leave to amend
her Complaint, and she has once again failed to assert sufficient
factual content to give her claims facial plausibility.

Those

claims are therefore dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
In addition to claims in her own name, Ayres also
attempts to bring several claims on behalf of her children.
These claims allege that the University of Hawaii at Manoa, as
part of a conspiracy, misrepresented the possibility that Ayres’s

3

daughter would bring a sibling on a study-abroad program, and
that the Department of Homeland Security, also as part of the
conspiracy, was responsible for the rejection of job applications
submitted by some of her children.

ECF No. 12 ¶ I.

In an

apparently unrelated matter, Ayres also attempts to bring a Title
VII claim against Clarks Shoes for denying her son’s job
application.

Id.

It is not clear from the face of the amended Complaint
whether Ayres’s children are now minors or adults.

This court

has asked Ayres to state the ages of her children but has
received no response.

ECF No. 14.

Ayres describes her “minor

child” as having been sixteen years old in 2010.

ECF No. 12 ¶ I.

Further, she uses the full names of her children in her
application to waive the prepayment of court fees, instead of
using only their initials as directed with respect to minors.
From this, the court infers that Ayres’s children named in the
Complaint are presently adults.
proceeding with this lawsuit.

Yet Ayres is the only person
To the extent that she seeks to

pursue her adult children’s claims, she runs afoul of the rule
that “non-attorney litigants may not represent other litigants”
in this court.

Church of the New Testament v. United States, 783

F.2d 771, 774 (9th Cir. 1986).

The claims relating to injuries

allegedly sustained by Ayres’s children are dismissed.

4

Because all the claims in the amended Complaint are
being dismissed, Ayres’s application to proceed without prepaying
fees is denied as moot.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close

this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 4, 2013.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
United States District Judge

Ayres v. President Barack Obama, et al.; Civil No. 13-00371 SOM/RLP; ORDER DISMISSING
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING
5
FEES AS MOOT