Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05734/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05734-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EOWYN CTS DE LA VEGA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BUREAU OF DIPLOMATIC SECURITY,

SAN FRANCISCO FIELD OFFICE, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Defendant. /

No. C 07-05734 WHA

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Pro se plaintiff Eowyn VBB Cts. de La Vega seeks five hundred thousand dollars in

damages from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security for “vicious violations of diplomatic protocol

practiced against moi a.factos since 1955.” This order DISMISSES this action for failure to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted.

On September 11, 2007, plaintiff filed a complaint in the San Francisco Superior Court. 

On November 2, 2007, the United States Attorney’s Office learned about the lawsuit when

researching plaintiff’s other lawsuit, Eowyn Cts. De la Vega v. Bureau of Diplomatic Security,

Case No. CGC 07-464542 on the San Francisco Superior Court website. The USAO was not

properly served under FRCP 4. Copies of the summons and complaint were obtained from the

Superior Court and they constitute the only process, pleading or order. This action has been

removed to district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441 because plaintiff appears to allege a tort

claim against the federal government. See 28 U.S.C. 1331; 28 U.S.C. 1346, 2671 et seq.

Case 3:07-cv-05734-WHA Document 8 Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

The complaint is completely incomprehensible, sometimes lapsing into scrawls

and symbols. Where the complaint states “[t]his court is the proper court because,”

plaintiff checked the following box: “injury to person or damage to personal property occurred

in its jurisdictional area.” She wrote, “SP [circled] BORDEN, evil RTA [circled] ‘broken seals’

Tehran rs [circled] jactos. Opp. foam. a BREAKS; p.52 DISPLAY DISTURBED 2005: my

a ‘focus’ 1954: 500p. 500sc. 500 windows.” (Notice of Rem. Exh. A at 4).

In the declaration attached to the complaint, plaintiff wrote, “the State Dept. Bureau of

Diplomatic Security USA has violently FAILED to REMEDY SP [circled] BORDEN. eric

RTA [circled] AS TO IMPERIL MY LIFE, an atomic prodigy. jactos. by CAUSE: ‘broken —

seals’, the plaintiff HAS FAILED Diplomatic PROTOCOL: in San Francisco, CA 2005 @ SF

Main Library — PEDATOR(S) SOUGHT, INDEX [circled] p 52 DISPLAY, DISTURBED. <a,

dart> BROWN. HIVE: columns, chem. anay. foam. my 1954 a ‘focus’ the most dangerous a

‘focus’ ever built HAG (the purple lake” @ Alrington Residence 480 Ellis St SF CA VAT

[circled] FNQ [circled] and Desire: RASPUTIN — cult” and so on and so forth (id. at 6).

Dismissal is proper under FRCP 12(b)(6) where there is either a “lack of a cognizable

legal theory” or “the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In resolving a

Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff, accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, and determine whether plaintiff can

prove any set of facts to support a claim that would merit relief. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,

80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, plaintiff’s complaint is completely

incomprehensible. Even when construed in the light most favorable to her, the fragmented

sentences and symbols do not come close to a cognizable legal theory, nor do they represent

facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. 

Accordingly this order finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted. This order also finds that no chance to amend need be given. Plaintiff’s

allegations make clear that none of her proffered theories will cure the jurisdictional defect. 

Case 3:07-cv-05734-WHA Document 8 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

For that reason, this order DISMISSES the complaint WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Clerk

shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2007 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05734-WHA Document 8 Filed 12/03/07 Page 3 of 3