ITIOWE v. THE UNTIED STATES GOVERNMENT OBAMA ADMINISTRATION et al
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 9/26/2017. (rtm, )
[Dkt. Nos. 10 and 18]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civil No. 16-9409 (RMB/KMW)
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, et al.,
Pending before this Court are two Motions to Dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure by Defendants The United States Government Obama
Administration, Mr. Barrack Obama; The United States Government
Trump Administration, Mr. Donald Trump; U.S. Department of
Justice, Jeff Sessions; Supreme Court of the United States,
Attention: Mr. John Roberts; John Kelly, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Michael Fisher, the United States Court of
Appeal; Kent Jordan, the United States Court of Appeal; Thomas
Vanaskie, the United States Court of Appeal; Jerome Simandle,
the United States District Court; Michael Shipp, the United
States District Court; Douglas Arpert, the United States
District Court; and Megan Brennan, USPS Post Office (“federal
defendants”) [Docket No. 10]; and the New Jersey State Police;
the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission; the Superior Court of
New Jersey – Appellate Division; the Superior Court of New
Jersey – Mercer Vicinage; Governor Chris Christie; New Jersey
State Police Superintendent Colonel Rick Fuentes; New Jersey
Motor Vehicle Commission Chief Administrator Raymond P.
Martinez; the Honorable Carmen H. Alvarez, P.J.A.D.; the
Honorable Susan L. Reisner, P.J.A.D.; the Honorable George S.
Leone, J.A.D.; the Honorable Mitchel E. Ostrer, J.S.C.; the
Honorable Douglas Hurd, P.J.Cv.; and the Honorable Darlene J.
Pereksta, J.S.C. (the “state Defendants”) [Docket No. 18].
Plaintiff Christiana Itiowe has also moved to Stay the
Proceedings [Docket No. 12].
Plaintiff, who represents herself, appears to allege that
the United States has perpetrated a civil rights conspiracy
against her life, property, rights and liberty in connection
with her car being “attacked,” the suspension of her driver’s
license and her heart attack. (Doc. 6 [Amended Complaint], p.
The Court agrees with the federal Defendants’ Motion that
Plaintiff provides no factual basis for how the United States,
the New Jersey State entities, let alone the named federal and
state Defendants, carried out the alleged conspiracy, violated
her civil rights, injured her or damaged her property.
Moreover, Plaintiff fails to provide any support for her claim
that she is entitled to the $800 trillion she seeks in relief.
(Doc. 6 [Amended Complaint], p. 18).
Plaintiff’s difficult-to-follow, almost incomprehensible,
Complaint fails to suggest the existence of any plausible claim.
Rule 8(a)(2) requires that every complaint contain a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief. Fed. Riv. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
in her pleading, must give the Defendant fair notice of what the
claim is and enough in the way of factual grounds upon which is
rests to plausibly demonstrate that she is entitled to relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 & n.3.
Where the well-
pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the
mere possibility of misconduct, the Complaint has alleged – but
has not shown – that the pleader is entitled to relief.
556 U.S. at 678-79.
Missing here is even the possibility of
Plaintiff fails to state any facts supporting her
claims, how any of the defendants engaged in a civil rights
conspiracy and why she is entitled to the $800 trillion she seeks
The Complaint must recite factual allegations enough
to raise the right to relief above the speculative level.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Fowler, 578 F.3d at 234.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, both Motions to
Dismiss [Docket Nos. 10 and 18] are GRANTED.
“Motion to Stay the Proceedings” is DENIED as it suffers from
the same pleading deficiencies discussed above.
Indeed, it is
rambling and incomprehensible.
The Court will grant Plaintiff
thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended
complaint that complies with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
containing a “short and plain statement of the claim” showing
she is entitled to relief and a “short and plain statement for
the Court’s jurisdiction.”
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
In the event Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint
the Court will enter an order of dismissal with prejudice.
the event Plaintiff does file an amended complaint, the federal
and state Defendants shall not file a responsive pleading until
further Order of the Court, affording this Court the opportunity
to determine, sua sponte, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) if the allegations “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, 536-37 (1974)(internal citations and quotation marks
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 26, 2017
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?