Elkinton, Cheryl v. President of the United States et al

Filing 5

ORDER dismissing this case with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's 4 motion to consolidate cases is DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 11/5/2012. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CHERYL A. ELKINTON,

v.

Plaintiff,

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
U.S. MILITARY, U.S. DEPT. OF DEFENSE,
MILITARY MARKETING ASSOC., and
VETERANS AFFAIRS,

OPINION AND ORDER
12-cv-681-wmc

Defendants.
CHERYL A. ELKINTON,

v.

Plaintiff,

PRESIDENT OF U.S. AND CABINET,
U.S. DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION, U.S.
DEPT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
U.S. DEPT OF FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
SAFETY COMMISSION, U.S. TREASURY,
U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR, and USDA (SERVICE
CENTER NATURAL RESOURCES
CONSERVATION SERVICE,

OPINION AND ORDER
12-cv-694-wmc

Defendants.
CHERYL A. ELKINTON,

v.

Plaintiff,

U.S. PRESIDENT BARAK OBAMA,
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, and
SECRETARIAL CABINET,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
12-cv-717-wmc

CHERYL A. ELKINTON,

v.

Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER
12-cv-769-wmc

PRESIDENT OF US AT ALL, and
BARACK OBAMA,
Defendants.

In the last six weeks, plaintiff Cheryl A. Elkinton has filed four lawsuits against
President Barack Obama and other government officials and agencies. In all four cases,
Elkinton moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and leave was granted, allowing her
to proceed without any prepayment of fees or costs. The court must now determine
whether Elkinton’s proposed actions are (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a
claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek money damages from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Because plaintiff’s complaints are
frivolous and fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, the court will deny
Elkinton leave as to all four complaints.

ALLEGATIONS
In the first complaint, No. 12-cv-681, plaintiff complains about the government’s
use of weapons, pollution caused by vehicles and genetically-engineered food. Elkinton
seeks orders abolishing the right to bear arms and ceasing all wars Americans are involved
in. (Compl. (dkt. #1) 6.)

2

In the second complaint, No. 12-cv-694, plaintiff complains about the excessive
coining of money, environmental-related sicknesses caused by genetically-engineered
foods and air quality and pollutants. For relief, plaintiff seeks a “cooperative effort,”
ideally “an emergency congressional session,” to “alleviate the aforementioned problems.”
(Compl. (dkt. #1) 4.)

Elkinton also seeks the implementation of a volunteer labor

system and driver licensing system. She also seeks a position in the health and human
services department, and a four bedroom home in the City of Madison, Wisconsin.
Elkinton also seeks orders concerning food testing and labeling, an end to genetic
engineering, in addition to other requested items of relief.
In the third complaint, No. 12-cv-717, plaintiff complains about extinction of
animal species and the government’s impact on jungles.

Elkinton seeks for relief “a

commercial property and a vacation home at a county park location, City of Madison.”
(Compl., No. 12-cv-717 (dkt. #1) 4.)
Lastly, in the fourth complaint, No. 12-cv-769, plaintiff complains about the
drought conditions, environmental issues generally and the quality of food in grocery
stores. (Complaint, No. 12-cv-769 (dkt. #1).) For relief, Elkinton seeks “stewardship
over sovereign and state lands and waters” and “a farm area set aside with animals.”
(Compl., No. 12-cv-769 (dkt. #1) 4.)

OPINION
As evidenced by the description of her complaints above, plaintiff does not allege
any comprehensible facts or state any cognizable claims under federal or state law. A

3

district court must dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the claims
stated are “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of [the United
States Supreme Court], or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a
federal controversy.” Steel Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89
(1998) (citing Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666
(1974)).

Because plaintiff’s complaints are unintelligible, I conclude that these cases

should be dismissed.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) the above-captioned cases are DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction; and
2) plaintiff’s motion to consolidate filed in all four cases (No. 12-cv-681, dkt. #4;
No. 12-cv-694, dkt. #4; No. 12-cv-717, dkt. #4; No. 12-cv-769, dkt. #3) is
DENIED AS MOOT.
Entered this 5th day of November, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

4