Landau v. United States Government et al

Filing 10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL and closing case. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM) cc: plaintiff via first class mail

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

4
5
6
7

KELLY A. LANDAU,
Plaintiff,

8
9

Case No. C18-0290RSM
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

10

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, et al.,
11
12

Defendants.

13

On February 27, 2018, pro se Plaintiff Kelly Landau filed a Complaint against the United

14

States and numerous current and former government officials, as well as against several non-

15

governmental individuals. Dkt. #3. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma

16
17

pauperis. Dkt. #2. Summons have not been issued.

18

In her 61-page Complaint, which appears to actually be two combined Complaints,

19

Plaintiff raises numerous allegations of violations of federal statutes all appearing to be based on

20

her belief that the government has been secretly surveilling her through a microchip implanted

21

in her tooth and through surveillance equipment installed on or in her various homes. See Dkt.
22
23

#3. It is not clear from the Complaint how each individual Defendant is alleged to be involved,

24

but Plaintiff appears to assert that they are all acting in concert as “the United States

25

Government.” Id. Plaintiff alleges a host of injuries as a result.

26

Accordingly, on February 28, 2018, this Court directed to Plaintiff to show cause why

27

her complaint should not be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, as failing to state a claim on
28

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
PAGE - 1

1

which relief may be granted, or for seeking monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

2

from such relief. Dkt. #4. In response, Plaintiff filed three documents: 1) an “article” about mind

3

control that appears to have been written by Plaintiff (Dkt. #5); 2) a 100-page “article” about

4

mind control written by a “Deb Chakraborty”; and 3) a “resolution” and letter written by Plaintiff

5

regarding “COINTELPRO” (Dkt. #7).
6
7

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) the Court shall dismiss an action if at any time it

8

determines that the action is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be

9

granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. After a

10

review of the Complaint in this matter, along with Plaintiff’s responses to the Order to Show

11

Cause, the Court believes that Plaintiff’s action falls within all of these categories. Nothing in
12
13

Plaintiff’s responses demonstrate a federal cause of action or describe any specific acts by the

14

named Defendants.

15
16

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED, and this case is now CLOSED.
The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order via U.S. Mail to Plaintiff at the address

17
18
19

contained on the Court’s docket.
DATED this 20 day of March, 2018.

20

A

21

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
PAGE - 2