Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-04223/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-04223-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIE A ARNOLD,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-04223-SVK 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 42

In this action, Marie Arnold (“Plaintiff”) alleges that the United States of America and the 

Central Intelligence Agency (collectively, “Defendants”) engaged in various tortious and criminal 

acts against her and her daughters. See generally Dkt. 5 (“FAC”). Before the Court is 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Dkt. 42. All parties have consented 

to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Dkts. 21, 40. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the 

Court deems this motion suitable for determination without oral argument. Based on the Parties’ 

submissions, the case file, and the relevant law, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss for the 

reasons discussed below.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have been targeting and abusing her and her daughters.

See generally FAC. Plaintiff recites a list of torts and crimes allegedly committed by Defendants, 

including violations of 42 U.S.C. § 2000dd, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (“RICO”), and the Eighth 

Amendment, as well as negligent infliction of emotional distress and fraudulent concealment. Id. 

¶ ¶ 1-48. Plaintiff seeks ten million dollars in damages. See FAC at 27. 

Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that: (1) this Court

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(1); and (2) the amended complaint fails to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule 

Case 5:19-cv-04223-SVK Document 52 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 5
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Dkt. 42 at 1. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Rule 12(b)(1)

A complaint may be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). A federal court lacks jurisdiction to 

consider claims that are “essentially fictitious,” “wholly insubstantial,” “obviously frivolous,” or 

“obviously without merit.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537, (1974). Thus, a claim “may be 

dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction if it is not colorable, i.e., if it is ‘immaterial and 

solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction’ or is ‘wholly insubstantial and frivolous.’” 

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 n. 10 (2006) (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n. 6 (1989) (“[a] patently insubstantial complaint 

may be dismissed . . . for want of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(1)”); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A paid 

complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer subject matter jurisdiction”).

B. Rule 12(b)(6)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint 

if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In ruling 

on a motion to dismiss, courts are limited to reviewing “the complaint, materials incorporated into 

the complaint by reference, and matters of which the court may take judicial notice.” Metzler Inv. 

GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). “The 

court accept[s] the plaintiff[’]s allegations as true and construe[s] them in the light most favorable 

to [the] plaintiff[].” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The court is not required 

to accept “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable 

inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).

To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 

This requires the plaintiff to allege facts that add up to “more than a sheer possibility that a 

defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Case 5:19-cv-04223-SVK Document 52 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 5
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack 

of subject-matter jurisdiction and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted. See Dkt. 42 at 1. Specifically, Defendants argue: (1) delusional 

claims are not sufficient to invoke this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) the United States 

has not waived its sovereign immunity for constitutional tort claims; (3) the United States has not

waived its sovereign immunity for RICO claims; (4) a private right of action does not exists under 

42 U.S.C. § 2000dd; (5) Plaintiff failed to state a tort claim; and (6) a claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 cannot be brought against the United States or its agencies. Id. Because the Court 

determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, it does not address 

Defendants’ remaining arguments. 

A. This Court Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction to Hear Plaintiff’s Claims

Federal courts do not have subject-matter jurisdiction over claims that are “so 

insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely 

devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 

523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (quoting Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Cty. of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 

666 (1974) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Hagans, 415 U.S. 528, at 536-37 (noting that 

federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over claims that are “essentially fictitious,” “wholly 

insubstantial,” “obviously frivolous,” or “obviously without merit”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227 n. 

6.

In the instant case, Plaintiff makes the following allegations:

Defendant intentionally permitted handlers contracted unlawful mind control. 

Plaintiff had raised in California, Plaintiff almost died from MIND Control Handler

and mind abduction "women beater handler" and "targeting pregnant women."

conspired by Oakland Prison. The plaintiff was using as a battlefield from MINDS. 

The mind controller and handler induce to infect innocent people and victims. 

Plaintiff has been aware of their fraudu1ent criminal activity and projects. Plaintiff 

is victim to this crime, bruises and head force trauma, bullied, emotional distress. 

Conspired by All Prison or military operation

FAC ¶ 30. 

Case 5:19-cv-04223-SVK Document 52 Filed 02/13/20 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff and her family felt like they were sleeping in middle of high power 

electricity the apartment in Monte Vista. Plaintiff report nail jabbing in sleep. 

Plaintiff describe torture as cruel and as no one wanted to help. Defendant neglected 

our compliant of pain and suffering as we are U.S. citizen driven out of our rights 

for 4th amendment to right to secure in your own home. Pain and suffering intense 

medical Psychology therapy. Plaintiff requested for antibiotics, I pain in stomach, 

ears, brain. Plaintiff and daughters cried at nights. Plaintiff hears screaming of people 

and children torture. People delaying to "move out of state." Plaintiff was force to 

move Plaintiff struggled mental disability of mind unable to sleep and had fatal 

insomnia was induced by the government. The plaintiff was induce inflicted 

emotional distress.

Id. ¶ 37. 

The prohibition against cruell (sic) and unusual punishment has led court to hold that 

the Constitution totally prohibits certain kinds of punishment, such as drawing and 

quartering. Plaintiff allege Defendant intentionally permitted unlawful cruel torture 

and degrading over and over and create inflicted emotional distress, psychological 

mental abuse of trauma, physical abuse, soft tissue brain, organs, Government CIA 

allowed to share mind with criminals with their tortures. 

Id. ¶ 48. 

As set forth above, Plaintiff’s allegations are inherently implausible and are precisely the 

kind of claims that are subject to dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See, e.g.,

Christiana v. United States, No. SA CV 17–0089–DOC (JCGx), 2017 WL 6512220, at *2 (C.D. 

Cal. Mar. 29, 2017) (dismissing action where Court determined it lacked jurisdiction over claims 

that the United States was “electrically shocking parts of Plaintiff’s body” and “burglarizing 

Plaintiff’s home” as “inherently implausible and obviously without merit”); Bivolarevic v. U.S. 

CIA, Case No. 09-4620-SBA, 2010 WL 890147, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2010) (dismissing action 

where Court determined it lacked jurisdiction over claims that CIA subjected the plaintiff to 

“voice to skull technology” as a “mind control weapon”); O’Brien v. United States Dep’t of 

Justice, 927 F. Supp. 382 (D. Ariz. 1995), aff’d, 76 F.3d 387 (9th Cir. 1996) (unpublished) 

(dismissing action for lack of jurisdiction because the allegations were “so bizarre and delusional 

that they [were] wholly insubstantial”). 

Plaintiff’s claims regarding mind control are implausible and cannot confer subject-matter 

jurisdiction on this Court. Accordingly, the Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction 

over Plaintiff’s claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (declaring that “[i]f the court determines at 

Case 5:19-cv-04223-SVK Document 52 Filed 02/13/20 Page 4 of 5
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action”).

B. Leave to Amend Would Be Futile

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states that a court “should freely give leave [to 

amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, “[a] district court acts 

within its discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.” V.V.V. & Sons 

Edible Oils Ltd. v. Meenakshi Overseas, LLC, 946 F.3d 542, 547 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation 

omitted). 

Allowing Plaintiff to amend her complaint for a second time would be futile, as more 

detailed allegations regarding mind control and other alleged conduct would not remedy the 

inherent issues discussed in Section III.A. Accordingly, the Court finds that leave to amend would 

be futile. See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Futility of amendment can, 

by itself, justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend.”).

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED without 

leave to amend. The Clerk shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2020

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-04223-SVK Document 52 Filed 02/13/20 Page 5 of 5