Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01709/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01709-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MELANIE C. LATRONICA,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DOUBLE TREE BY HILTON, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-01709-DMR 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

Re: Dkt. No. 12 

On April 15, 2015, Plaintiff Melanie Latronica filed a Complaint. [Docket No. 1.] On 

April 24, 2015, the court dismissed the case pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) 

and 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, granted Plaintiff leave to amend.1 [Docket No. 

5.] Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint. [Docket No. 12.] 

In the previous order dismissing the case, the court stated “that Plaintiff’s allegations are 

entirely incomprehensible and arise to the level of ‘wholly fanciful’ such that sua sponte dismissal 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate at this stage.” Docket No. 5 at 4 (citing 

Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981) “District courts 

have the authority to dismiss complaints founded on ‘wholly fanciful’ factual allegations for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction.”)). The court was “unable to discern from Plaintiff’s complaint 

 

1

 A magistrate judge generally must obtain the consent of the parties to enter dispositive rulings 

and judgments in a civil case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). However, in cases such as this one, 

where the plaintiff has consented but not served the defendants, “all parties have consented 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1),” and a magistrate judge therefore “‘may conduct any or all 

proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case.’” Gaddy 

v. McDonald, No. CV 11-08271 SS, 2011 WL 5515505, at *1 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) 

(quoting § 636(c)(1)) (citing United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995)); 

Third World Media, LLC v. Doe, No. C 10-04470 LB, 2011 WL 4344160, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 

15, 2011)); see also Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that magistrate 

judge had jurisdiction to dismiss action as frivolous without consent of defendants because 

defendants had not yet been served and therefore were not parties). 

Case 4:15-cv-01709-DMR Document 13 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 3
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 Californi

a

what claim she is alleging against whom, and what relief she is seeking from the Court.” Id. at 2. 

The court noted that the Complaint listed “[o]ver fifty individuals and/or entities” as defendants, 

some of whom were unidentifiable, and many of whom had no allegations directed toward them. 

Id. The court also found that “[t]he allegations against Defendants are entirely incoherent, reciting 

claims of ‘bondage,’ ‘burning the skin & eyes/Torture,’ ‘non-stop identity theft,’ ‘chattel gameplaying’ and ‘neurocybernetics.’” Id. The Complaint attached filings from Plaintiff’s previous 

cases, photographs of unidentified individuals, dictionary entries, lists of Time Warner properties, 

information about the Xerox Corporation, and other seemingly random items. Id. at 3. The court 

also stated that “Plaintiff lists several amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the United Nations 

Declaration of Human Rights, several federal criminal and civil statutes, see Compl. 18-19, though 

it is unclear whether she alleges that any of these were violated, by whom, and under what legal 

authority she is pursuing a claim for their violation.” Id. at 3. 

The Amended Complaint is no more comprehensible than the Complaint. The following is 

a representative sample of the statements in the Amended Complaint: 

As noted in the answer to the order dated April 24, 2015: the 

Plaintif(s) have never been criminals although have been given a 

death sentence. Private sectors, Private Enterprises, Terra 2 and 

or 1 is being destroyed by these criminal defendants and the 

Plaintiff in the case against the defendants. please see 

defendants and the accompanied request with the claim of an 

emergency order for them to stop now expedited, as mentioned 

honorable court it doesn’t matter where the Plaintiff goes and or 

lives and or what town these defendants don’t stop. (terras a 

minor) 

Live Deprivation (reason) Larcency stealing plaintiff(s) life & 

capuut off with the head $$$. 1. Chattel Slavery/Judgment without 

due process/Substantive & Private Law, Private Sectors. 2. 

Torture/mass bodily injury/identity theft/double tree 

imposters/leeches/parasites technical internal. 

(Reputation as a reminder); Honorable Court due to the (CHTLS) 

(IS) (RP) (CS) (CC) (P) situation the Plaintiff(s) have honestly 

exhausted all legal remedies and is exhausted due to the defendants 

fraudulent concealment and the defendants in a constant activity 

nonstop and the defendants giving the plaintiff(s) the run around 

especially about the identity of these criminal defendants who are 

demised. The defendants are now known due to investigating at 

the assessor’s office and at the recorder’s office. The defendants 

are guilty of being the worst obstruction of justice when the plaintiff 

is doing everything legal not to be subjected to this and to not be a 

victim for another day. 

Case 4:15-cv-01709-DMR Document 13 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

Am

abs

v. M

giv

alle

tran

cas

Da

m. Compl. at

“A distr

solutely clea

Mesa, 698 F

ven Plaintiff 

ege any caus

nsaction that

se. 

IT IS S

ated: May 19

The defenda

that’s one o

involuntaril

defendants) 

for any of th

t 1-6. 

rict court sh

ar that the de

.3d 1202, 12

an opportun

se of action a

t occurred at

SO ORDER

9, 2015 

ants some of

of the main 

y (and will

subjected t

his from day

ould not dism

eficiencies of

212 (9th Cir.

nity to amend

against any p

t any time. T

RED. 

3

f them are li

reasons as t

l never giv

o all of this

y one. 

miss a pro se

f the compla

. 2012) (quo

d her compla

person or en

The court th

___

DO

Un

iens and or m

to why the P

ve permissio

s. The Plain

e complaint 

aint could no

otations omit

aint, but the 

ntity, or even

herefore dism

__________

ONNA M. R

nited States M

mechanic lie

Plaintiff(s) h

on to these

ntiff(s) didn

without leav

ot be cured b

tted). Here, 

Amended C

n state any co

misses the co

___________

RYU 

Magistrate Ju

ens and so 

have been 

 criminal 

’t sign up 

ve to amend 

by amendmen

the court ha

Complaint sti

oncrete even

omplaint and

__________

udge 

unless it is 

nt.” Akhtar 

s already 

ill fails to 

nt or 

d closes the 

________ 

Case 4:15-cv-01709-DMR Document 13 Filed 05/19/15 Page 3 of 3