Jackson v. Obama et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for #8 Report and Recommendations. This civil action is Dismissed without prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Order as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 3/22/2017 (wld)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
MADIE RUTH JACKSON
BARACK OBAMA United States,
PRINCE WILLIAM WALES,
FAINT ROBERT WALKER Judge,
HIGHLAND HOSPITAL DOCTORS, §
PRINCE HARRY WALES,
FELICIA DUNN BURKES,
RONYELLE RHODES, and
CIVIL NO.: 1:16cv379-HSO-JCG
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION , OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION 
AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation  of United
States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo, entered in this case on February 9, 2017,
recommending that this civil action be dismissed. R. & R.  at 1. After
consideration of the Report and Recommendation , the Objection filed by Plaintiff
Madie Ruth Jackson (“Plaintiff”), the record, and relevant legal authority, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s Objection  should be overruled, the Report and
Recommendation  should be adopted as the finding of this Court, and Plaintiff’s
claims should be dismissed without prejudice.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff, who is pro se, filed a Complaint  in this Court on October 17,
2016, against President Barack Obama, Beverly Strickland, Julie Theater, Prince
William Wales, and Judge Faint Robert Walker seeking $100 million in damages
and relief from the federal government. Compl.  at 1. On November 7, 2016,
Plaintiff filed a document purporting to be “Attachments,” which the Court
construed as an Amended Complaint . This document appears to name
additional Defendants: Beyonce Knowles, Jay Z, Highland Hospital Doctors, Tonya
Wyder, Oprah Winfrey, Prince Charles of Wales, Prince Henry of Wales, Princess
Kate Middleton, Felicia Dunn Burkes, Michelle Obama, Nescaterica Banks, Ronyell
Rhodes, Wanda Smith, and television station WLOX. Am. Compl.  at 6.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants are harassing her in various ways, including
recording her, torturing her, paying her not to think, and threatening her. See
Compl.  at 2-7. The following unedited excerpt of Plaintiff’s claims against
Michelle Obama is illustrative of her other allegations:
Michelle Obama pays me not to think. torture me for twenty years for
crystal clear and sluices seat position line upon percept Arc of the knives
and a sword from the Bible she has a hold on my right knee, leg.
Am. Compl.  at 15.
On November 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff to file a brief
demonstrating that the Court could properly exercise federal subject matter
jurisdiction over this case. Order  at 3.
The Court warned Plaintiff that this
case would be dismissed if she did not file the required brief by November 30, 2016.
Id. at 5. Plaintiff timely filed a Response  to the Magistrate Judge’s Order 
which is peppered with the word “federal” and, although the context is unclear,
suggests that the United States government is involved in Defendants’ alleged
scheme. See Resp.  at 1 (“This action starts with Barack Obama and a
watchman and a Federal microphone”); at 2 (“Federal watchman enables Prince
William to tortures [sic] me”); at 4 (“I believe this is an altar that needs to be
examined by Federal government and courts.”).
On February 8, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order  granting
Plaintiff’s Motion  to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Magistrate Judge then entered a Report and Recommendation  on February
9, 2017, that this case be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The Magistrate Judge found that diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332 was lacking because Plaintiff is a Mississippi citizen and at least one
of the Defendants is also a Mississippi resident. R. & R.  at 4.
The Magistrate Judge found that federal question jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1331 did not exist because no federal claim appears on the face of Plaintiff’s
pleadings. Id. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the case was also subject to
dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because Plaintiff’s allegations
were factually frivolous. Id. at 7. On February 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed an
Objection  to the Report and Recommendation .
Where an objection is made to a magistrate’s report and recommendation, the
Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent that a plaintiff does not object to portions of a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de
novo review of it. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In such cases, a court need only review
the proposed findings of fact and recommendation and determine whether they are
either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219,
1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
The Court is unable to determine what portions of the Report and
Recommendation  Plaintiff objects to other than that she appears to wish that
her lawsuit be allowed to proceed.1 Erring on the side of caution and assuming
Plaintiff objects to all of the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact and
recommendation, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record and the
Report and Recommendation .
Based on the record before this Court, and
having conducted the required review, the Court is of the opinion that the
The Court is unable to determine what Plaintiff is attempting to communicate in the twopage filing that is styled as an Objection , which begins with the following sentence: “The
statements the President makes about Incarnation, comes from a sluice and a clear.” Obj.
 at 1. The remainder of the Objection  is as inscrutable as its opening.
Magistrate Judge properly recommended that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed.
Court further finds that, for the reasons stated herein, the Report and
Recommendation  of United States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo entered
on February 9, 2017, should be adopted as the finding of this Court, along with the
additional findings made herein, and Plaintiff’s Objection  should be overruled.
Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter
jurisdiction only over those matters specifically designated by the Constitution or
Epps v. Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Cos. Water Improvement Distr. No. 1,
665 F.2d 594, 595 (5th Cir. 1982)).
Courts “must presume that a suit lies
outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction
rests on the party seeking the federal forum.”
912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001).
Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d
The Court has “a continuing duty to inquire into the basis
of jurisdiction,” and to dismiss any action over which it lacks jurisdiction.
v. United States, 874 F.2d 280, 281-82 (5th Cir. 1989); FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3).
28 U.S.C. § 1332 provides that district courts have original jurisdiction over
actions between citizens of different states in which the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000.00. The Complaint  alleges that Plaintiff is a citizen of
Compl.  at 1.
The Magistrate Judge concluded that § 1332 is
inapplicable because at least some of the Defendants are also citizens of Mississippi.
R. & R.  at 4.
Although the Court is not fully apprised of the citizenship of each
potential Defendant, more than one appears to be a Mississippi citizen.2
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not sustained her burden of
showing that there is complete diversity of citizenship, and the Court may not
exercise subject matter jurisdiction under § 1332.
28 U.S.C. §1331 provides that district courts have original jurisdiction in “all
civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
28 U.S.C. §1331.
“In order for a case to come within the ambit of federal question
jurisdiction, the federal issue must appear on the face of the complaint and must
involve a claim founded directly on federal law.”
Epps, 665 F.2d at 595 (citations
Here, the Court notes that Plaintiff wrote that she is suing “Barack Obama,
United States,” see Compl.  at 1, and also states in her brief regarding federal
jurisdiction that she is “suing the feds,” Resp.  at 4.
Construing these references
liberally, they could be read to indicate that Plaintiff intended to file suit against
the United States government, which has the potential to create federal question
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
See Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225, 230
(2007); see also Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671, et seq.
(waiving federal sovereign immunity for injury, property loss, or death caused by a
federal government employee “while acting within the scope of his office or
For example, the Court can and does take judicial notice that Defendants Walker and
Burkes have both served as municipal judges in Mississippi.
employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person,
would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act
or omission occurred”).
However, the United States Supreme Court “has repeatedly held that the
federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their
jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of
merit, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, plainly unsubstantial, or no longer
open to discussion.”
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536 (1974) (internal
quotations and citations omitted).
Plaintiff’s claims against former President
Barack Obama, for example, include the following representative excerpt:
The President is using a recorder on [Plaintiff] and earshots on
[Plaintiff] . . . He has [P]rince William harassing [Plaintiff] for crystal
clear boxes for his diadem. He took [Plaintiff’s] mind and started
recordering [sic] . . . He has microphones on [Plaintiff’s] skull with
different government officials making short statements to [Plaintiff] he
says for [Plaintiff] wanting to become an Rn.
Compl.  at 3.
The Court finds that these allegations are “so insubstantial, implausible,
foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court or otherwise completely devoid of merit as
not to involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the District Court.”
Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. State v. Oneida Cty., N.Y., 414 U.S. 661, 667 (1974).
The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff has established federal question
jurisdiction, and Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed without prejudice.
Factually Frivolous Claims
Even if the Court did possess subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1331, Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed as factually frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915, the federal statute governing in forma pauperis proceedings. The
statute provides that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that . . . [the action] is frivolous or malicious.”
28 U.S.C. §
§ 1915 thus affords the Court “not only the authority to dismiss a claim based
on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the
veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
“Examples of the latter class are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios,
claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar.”
Id. at 328.
Dismissals on grounds of frivolousness may be “made sua sponte prior to the
issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and
expense of answering such complaints.”
Id. at 324.
The Court has reviewed and construed liberally the allegations set forth in
Plaintiff’s Complaint , Amended Complaint , and Response  to the Court’s
order requiring briefing on jurisdiction, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusion that Plaintiff’s “factual contentions are clearly baseless.”
R. & R.  at
Plaintiff’s arguments in her Objection  do not change this result.
finds that dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims is warranted under § 1915 because they
“rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted an independent
de novo review of the record because Plaintiff filed a written Objection . For the
reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Objection  should be
To the extent Plaintiff did not object to portions of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation , the Court finds that those portions are
neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221. The
Court further concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
 should be adopted as the finding of the Court, along with the additional findings
made herein. Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Report and
Recommendation  of United States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo entered in
this case on February 9, 2017, along with the additional findings made herein, is
adopted in its entirety as the finding of this Court.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, this civil action is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A separate judgment will be entered in
accordance with this Order as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 22nd day of March, 2017.
s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?