Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-05147/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-05147-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-05147-SVK 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 40

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

(“Defendant”) was negligent towards her family. See generally Dkt. 37. Before the Court is 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. Dkt. 40. All parties have 

consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Dkts. 19, 27. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-

1(b), the Court deems this motion suitable for determination without oral argument. 

Based on the Parties’ submissions and the relevant law, the Court GRANTS the motion to 

dismiss for the reasons discussed below.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has been targeting and abusing her and her daughters.

1

See 

generally Dkt. 37. Plaintiff asserts a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act and a claim for 

negligence and seeks ten million dollars in damages. Id. at 4-9. 

Defendant moves 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) Plaintiff has failed to state a claim as required by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. 40 at 2.

1 Plaintiff also has another case stemming out of these same facts. See 19-cv-4223-SVK. 

Case 5:19-cv-05147-SVK Document 48 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

II. LEGAL STANDARD

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”).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant first moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). See Dkt. 40 at 4-7. Specifically, Defendant argues: (1) delusional 

claims are not sufficient to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction; (2) the FTCA bars claims against the 

United States for failure to investigate; and (3) the FTCA is the exclusive remedy for Plaintiff’s 

negligence allegations. Id. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that she “pleaded sufficient facts that supports that ‘cruel 

inhuman torture and degrading, loud sound effects exists nearby Prison (0.7). Whether Plaintiff 

and daughter was not Prison. The U.S. Constitutions Amendment Eighth does not indicate that 

Plaintiff has to be sentenced in order to pleaded subject–matter jurisdiction.”2 Dkt. 43 at 2. 

Plaintiff further argues that she “allege Defendant government officials who in charge of internal 

investigation failed their duty and obligation. Committed negligence under 1346 (b) (1) and 2671-

2680 discretionary function. The government official employees failed to provided DOJ video 

surveillance, recording of threats and tortures and break ins as Plaintiff demand in written letter to 

2 The allegations are set forth verbatim. Due to the numerous spelling and grammar errors therein, 

the court has dispensed with the use of (sic). 

Case 5:19-cv-05147-SVK Document 48 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

Department of Justice which Plaintiff faxed. Plaintiff has supporting evidences filed in exhibits. 

Plaintiff is a witness to this ‘horrifying and torture’ vivid nightmares tormented and was being 

totally disoriented, life threating.” Id. at 3. 

Because the Court determines that Plaintiff’s claims are not sufficient to invoke this 

Court’s jurisdiction, it does not address Defendant’s remaining arguments. 

A. This Court Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Over 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.

Plaintiff claims, in part:

Defendant Attorney General William P. Barr committed negligence to Plaintiff’s 

complaint therefore Plaintiff suffered severed pain and suffering emotional distress. 

Plaintiff daughters were crying and tears dreed coming home.

Dkt. 37 at 5. 

Defendant had legal duty legal duty investigate with law enforcement of hate crimes, 

violent crimes, death threats, counter terrorism hostage taking etc., politic targeting. 

Anti -religion, Anti -governments, Anti- social groups inducing heart attack. These 

Defendant[s] are certified Government employees. Defendant[s] has power to 

control prosecuted unlawful stalkers, these Defendant has high technology to prevent 

crime. Defendant[s] has abuse the power to turn off electronic sound effects of voices 

of patronizing of false accusations, unlawful breaching medical records.

Id. at 6. 

Plaintiff and her family were harmed by Defendant negligent by tortures, exposure 

of contaminated, air quality. Plaintiff and her family were forced out exposure 

contaminated water, psychological mental abuse, disoriented in brain, cause memory 

loss, chronic illness, inducing medical disability to worsen, vivid real abusive 

nightmares. Defendant has failed to meet the standard of care, which is measure of 

the Defendant[s] legal obligation to Plaintiff. Plaintiff reliance on duty of the 

investigation Defendant failed their obligation committed breach, Their negligence 

cause through time pain and suffering and illness. Plaintiffs family were living in 

fears and relocating safer area. Plaintiff had life threaten abuse on her left leg, on 

Case 5:19-cv-05147-SVK Document 48 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

vacation to California, cause paralysis and x rays and shots for pain killers.

Id. at 7. 

Defendant breach their duty of standard of care. Defendant's unreasonable conduct 

cause pain and suffering, induce nightmares, loss consortium, mental psychology 

abuse, physical and health illness, disorient mind, in Bakerfield, Ca on August 

3,2019. Plaintiff got electronic harassment of her left leg, while sleeping. Plaintiff 

end up in Dignity Hospital for x rays, pain killers, concerns of paralysis.

Id. at 8. Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant are implausible and are 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 implausible claims 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) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter 

jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action”).

B. Leave to Amend Would Be Futile

“Courts are free to grant a party leave to amend whenever justice so requires . . . and 

requests for leave should be granted with extreme liberality.” Moss v. United States Secret Serv., 

572 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)) (citations and internal 

quotation marks omitted). 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). 

Case 5:19-cv-05147-SVK Document 48 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

The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint on January 6, 2020 (Dkt. 35) and 

Plaintiff filed her amended complaint on January 13, 2020 (Dkt. 37). The Court finds that 

allowing Plaintiff to amend her complaint 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, Defendant’s 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-05147-SVK Document 48 Filed 02/13/20 Page 5 of 5