Ayres v. Obama et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS re 1 , 4 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 8/8/13. " The court dismisses the Complaint and denies the Application but grants Ayres leave to amended her Complaint no later than August 30, 2013. Failure to file an Amended Complaint that states viable claims by August 30, 2013, will result in the automatic dismissal of this action." (emt , )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). Vanessiah Ayres shall be served by first class mail at the address of record on August 9, 2013.

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,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF
VETERAN’S AFFAIRS, FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
CLARKS SHOES, BRITISH
AIRWAYS, AND DELTA AIRLINES,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AS MOOT
I.

INTRODUCTION.
On July 26, 2013, Plaintiff Vanessiah Ayres filed a

Complaint against President Barack Obama, the Department of
Homeland Security, the Department of Veterans 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
(“Application”), and has demonstrated an inability to pay court
fees.

See ECF No. 4.

However, the court has screened the

Complaint and determined that it fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted.

Accordingly, the court denies the

Application and dismisses the Complaint.

The court grants Ayres

leave to amend her Complaint.
II.

BACKGROUND.
Although Ayres lists numerous parties as Defendants in

the case, Ayres’s Complaint only contains allegations of civil
rights violations against the FBI.

Id. ¶ 2.

Ayres claims that

the FBI has slandered her and her family’s reputation.

Id. ¶ 2A.

The FBI has allegedly informed institutions that Ayres and her
family have been placed on the list of suspected threats to the
United States.

Id.

Because Ayres’s passports allegedly contain

false information that is accessible to countries other than the
United States, Ayres and her family are mistreated when they
travel.

Id.

Furthermore, the FBI has allegedly been slandering

Ayres’s family to potential employers, thus preventing her
children from finding employment.

Id. ¶ 2E.

Ayres alleges that the FBI’s actions infringe on her
family’s constitutional rights to privacy.

Id. ¶ 2C.

Ayres

claims that the FBI has inserted radio-frequency identification
(“RFID”) tags into their bodies in order to investigate her and
her family.

Id. ¶ 2B.

The FBI also allegedly uses animals, such

as canines, to detect substances on Ayres’s body and as an
intimidation strategy.

Id.

The FBI allegedly further invades

her family’s privacy when it accesses their phone, fax, and email
communications.

Id. ¶ 2C.

2

Ayres alleges that the FBI has interfered with her
right to legal representation.

Id. ¶ 2D.

Ayres alleges that she

has been forced to represent herself because the attorneys that
she contacted to request representation were instructed by the
FBI not to represent Ayres.

Id.

Ayres asserts discrimination because she has not been
compensated with the 40 acres and a mule granted by President
Ulysses Grant to former slaves and their descendants.

Id. ¶ 2E.

Ayres also claims that she has had numerous applications for home
purchases rejected because of discrimination.

Id.

Ayres further asserts that the FBI has interfered with
her right to benefit payments from the Department of Veterans
Affairs.

Id. ¶ 2F.

Ayres’s husband passed away in 1998, but she

alleges that she has not received any of the benefits that she is
entitled to as a widow of a United States Navy veteran.

Id.

Finally, Ayres alleges that her and her family have a
birthright, as people of African descent, and a constitutional
right, as American citizens, to dual citizenship, and demands
that the United States government provide her and her family with
dual citizenship.
III.

Id. ¶ 2G.

ANALYSIS.
To proceed in forma pauperis, Ayres must demonstrate

that she is unable to prepay the court fees, and that her
Complaint sufficiently pleads claims.

3

See Lopez v. Smith, 203

F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (applying in forma pauperis
requirements to nonprisoners).
A.

Ayres Has Shown that She is Unable to Prepay Court
Fees.

According to the 2013 Federal Poverty Guidelines, the
poverty guideline for a three-person household in Hawaii is
$22,470.00.

Ayres’s indicates that she is unemployed but

receives income from pension, annuity, or life insurance
payments.

Ayres’s gross pay or wages total $1,376.00 per month,

which means she receives $16,512.00 per year.

The Application

indicates that she has no money in cash or in a checking or
savings account and does not have any other assets.

Ayres’s

expenses include $1,204.19 per month for rent and approximately
$700.00 per month for other bills such as electricity, phone
service, food, and transportation.
daughter as dependents.

Ayres lists her son and

Although she does not indicate how much

she contributes to their support, the court, having reviewed the
information provided by Ayres, determines that Ayres has
established that she is unable to pay the cost of this
proceeding.
B.

Ayres’s Complaint Fails to State a Claim on Which
Relief May Be Granted.

Although Ayres’s income is below the Federal Poverty
Guideline, the court denies the Application because the Complaint
does not sufficiently plead claims as required by Rule 8 of the
4

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e), the court subjects every in forma pauperis proceeding
to mandatory screening and orders the dismissal of the complaint
if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.”

28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126–27 (stating that 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the court to sua
sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state
a claim).
Although Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
does not require detailed factual allegations, “a plaintiff’s
obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to
relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
not do.”

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

The complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.”

Id. at 570.

“A claim has facial plausibility when

the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged.”
(2009).

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677

“Naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement”

that suggest only a “mere possibility of misconduct” are not
enough to state a claim for relief.

5

Id. at 698.

Ayres appears to assert slander, discrimination, and
invasion of privacy among other frivolous claims.
bases for her claims remain unclear.

The legal

Even construing Ayres’s

Complaint liberally, Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d
920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003), the court cannot identify any plausible
ground for any of Ayres’s claims.

This court dismisses Ayres’s

Complaint for failing to state a cognizable claim upon which
relief can be granted.
VI.

CONCLUSION.
The court dismisses the Complaint and denies the

Application but grants Ayres leave to amend her Complaint no
later than August 30, 2013.

Failure to file an Amended Complaint

that states viable claims by August 30, 2013, will result in the
automatic dismissal of this action.
Because (1) the court is dismissing the Complaint,
(2) the court cannot say that there was enough before the court
to warrant appointment of counsel, and (3) having no funds to pay
counsel in civil cases, the court is sparing in its grants of
requests for pro bono counsel, the request for appointment of
counsel is denied without prejudice to being revisited (without
any guarantee as to result) if Ayres presents the court with a
claim that is at least plausible.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 8, 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
COMPLAINT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES AS
MOOT

7