Cram v. US Interior

Filing 13

ORDER. It is hereby ORDERED that 7 Magistrate Judge Hoffman's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 1 -2 Cram's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice and all pending motions ( 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , and 11 ) are DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 4/24/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Barbara Ruth Cram,

5

Case No.: 2:16-cv-02870-JAD-CWH

Plaintiff

6

v.

7

Order Adopting Report and
Recommendation Dismissing Case with
Prejudice, and Denying Remaining
Motions as Moot

U.S. Interior,

8

Defendant

[ECF Nos. 3-8, 11]

9
10
Pro se plaintiff Barbara Ruth Cram sues the “U.S. Interior.”1 Cram alleges that she and her

11
12

newborn baby were both stabbed, beheaded, and murdered by “subject[s]” she describes as

13

“ventriloquists [that] sound like each other and have white hair,” who “work in corrections,” and are

14

“members of a roving gang.”2 Cram explains that she was delayed in bringing her complaint because

15

she “was raped at [her] home 1200 times, [was] kidnapped daily . . . [and] was shot over 100 times

16

in the head while trying to bring this case.”3 Cram requests $5,000,000 in damages.4
Magistrate Judge Bill Hoffman granted Cram’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, but

17
18

recommends that Cram’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that all pending motions in the

19

case be denied as moot because Cram’s allegations “describe fantastic and delusional scenarios and

20

do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”5 In so recommending, Magistrate Judge

21
22

1

ECF No. 1-2 at 1–19.

23

2

Id. at 1–3, 5–11.

24

3

Id. at 15.

25

4

Id. at 18–19.

26

5

27

ECF No. 7 (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that a district court is
not required to provide leave to amend a complaint if the complaint could not possibly be cured by the
allegation of other facts)).

28

1

1

Hoffman references the above-cited factual allegations from Cram’s complaint, along with other

2

allegations made by Cram in the disjointed 19-page affidavit she attached to her complaint.6 Cram

3

timely objects.7

4

In her objection, Cram raises additional incoherent allegations of “guarding judges,” “Janet

5

Reno’s home,” “the Secretary of State,” “the U.S. President[,] and more than one senator that

6

became president.”8 Cram also cites previous work she allegedly performed as “a secret service

7

agent,” as well as accomplishments that she has allegedly achieved, such as passing a “review by the

8

Senate Intelligence Committee for [her] work performance.”9 Cram then states, “I assure you I do

9

not want to be delusional or frivolous in court,” before describing throughout the remainder of her

10

37-page objection another gruesome tableau of “baby massacre[s],” disembowelments, repeated

11

murders of herself and babies, graphic sexual and physical assaults on her and babies, being

12

“beheaded 10 times,” and dying 10 times before being resurrected.

13

Only two brief portions of Cram’s objection even purport to challenge Magistrate Judge

14

Hoffman’s Report and Recommendation. First, at page 17, Cram disputes the magistrate judge’s

15

quote from her complaint that she was raped “1200 times.”10 Cram asserts that instead, she “ha[s]

16

been raped about 1500 times[,] . . . was knifed hundreds of times during [the] rape[s,] and died

17

sometimes to be raised[,] . . . [only] to be later dropped on the freeway in the travel lanes to die

18

under cars.”11 Second, Cram asserts that she is “requesting 40 million dollars for everything and still

19

know[s] what these things are worth. My 5 million was so low that it could be settled by you easily

20
21
22

6

See id. at 2.

23

7

ECF No. 10.

24

8

Id. at 1–3.

25

9

Id.

26

10

Id. at 17.

27

11

Id.

28

2

1

and you could let me know what you think if it wasn’t enough.”12 Cram supports her increased

2

demand for money damages by asserting for the first time that “[t]here is also the death of

3

approximately 1,000 infants in association with the violent crime [she] described.”13
“‘A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

4
5

[magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is

6

made.’”14 “The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s

7

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”15 “A judge of the

8

court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by

9

the magistrate judge.”16
Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, the court must screen the complaint

10
11

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, the court must identify cognizable claims

12

and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted,

13

or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.17 A complaint is frivolous

14

if it contains “claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless,” such as “claims describing

15

fantastic or delusional scenarios.”18

16

Dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard

17

for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).19 To survive § 1915

18

review, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for

19
20

12

Id. at 19.

21

13

Id. at 19–20.

22

14

U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)).

23

15

Id.

24

16

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c).

25

17

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

26

18

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989).

27

19

Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012).

28

3

1

relief that is plausible on its face.”20 The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only

2

dismiss them “if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of

3

[her] claim which would entitle [her] to relief.”21

4

Here, Magistrate Judge Hoffman recommends dismissal of this case with prejudice and

5

denying all remaining motions as moot because Cram’s complaint alleges only delusional and

6

frivolous allegations and fails to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. I agree. Cram’s

7

complaint lacks any plausible factual allegations and is replete with delusional and frivolous claims.

8

Having reviewed de novo those portions of the Report and Recommendation that Cram objects to, I

9

find no error. Cram’s only objections to the Report and Recommendation purport to: (1) correct

10

implausible facts from her complaint; and (2) seek my advice on whether a $40 million demand for

11

money damages is more appropriate than her original $5 million demand. I am not persuaded by

12

Cram’s objections because they are delusional, frivolous, and purport to seek my advice on a legal

13

matter, which I cannot give. Thus, the only reasons provided by Cram for objecting to Magistrate

14

Judge Hoffman’s Report and Recommendation fail.

15

Accordingly, and with good cause appearing,

16

It is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s Report and Recommendation [ECF

17

No. 7] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED

18

that Cram’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice and all pending motions [ECF Nos. 3, 4, 5,

19

6, 8, 11] are DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

20

DATED April 24, 2017.

21
22

_________________________________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26

20

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

27

21

Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

28

4