Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01914/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01914-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

Case Nos. 15-CV-00643-LHK; 15-CV-01803-LHK; 15-CV-01914-LHK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINTS 

WITH PREJUDICE

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CAROLYN ELIZABETH GRIFFIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

VENTURA MILITARY BASE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case Nos. 15-CV-00643-LHK

 15-CV-01803-LHK

 15-CV-01914-LHK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

PENDING MOTIONS AND 

DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINTS WITH PREJUDICE

Since February 11, 2015, pro se plaintiff Carolyn Elizabeth Griffin (“Plaintiff”) has filed 

multiple 740-page complaints in this district against defendants Ventura Military Base and the 

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (collectively, “Defendants”). See Case Nos. 15-00643 

(N.D. Cal.), 15-01803 (N.D. Cal.), 15-01914 (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff filed a fourth 740-page 

complaint in the Central District of California. See Case No. 15-00573 (C.D. Cal.).

Each of these prolix complaints alleges, inter alia: (1) Plaintiff was in charge of the “Arctic 

Oil Project” when her DNA allegedly was obtained unlawfully and “sent for input into the 

military, satellite space based technology, Ventura Military Base computer system with criminal 

intent, to commit numerous crimes”; (2) “five lawyers” working on behalf of Plaintiff and others 

Case 5:15-cv-01914-LHK Document 19 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Case Nos. 15-CV-00643-LHK; 15-CV-01803-LHK; 15-CV-01914-LHK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINTS 

WITH PREJUDICE

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

involved in the “Arctic Oil Project” allegedly were murdered, either by “hit operators” or by 

“direct hits to their hearts by the codes sent by the Fort Meade-NSA Army, to the Ventura Military 

Base department where the employees input the codes into the military computer system, that 

caused a heart attack for their death”; (3) Defendants and/or other federal agencies or employees 

attempted to stalk, murder, kidnap, sexually abuse, or frame Plaintiff, and allegedly rape her on 

television; (4) Plaintiff has been tortured by means of “electromagnetic vice head pressure force,” 

“electromagnetic weaponry blasts,” “electromagnetic weaponry” that “target[s] [Plaintiff’s] brain 

stem,” “micro-waves,” “satellite space based technology,” “computer talk,” and “whisper talk”; 

(5) the “Fort Meade Army Base NSA Division,” in a conspiracy with the Department of 

Homeland Security and possibly other agencies, allegedly sent codes, “along with other terrorist 

acts with genocide intent,” purportedly in order to control victims, steal assets, commit genocide, 

and kidnap Plaintiff or her family “with heinous very sick satanic involvement”; (6) the “Fort 

Meade-NSA Army” set up bazookas in Plaintiff’s neighborhood to blow up Plaintiff’s residence 

or her yacht, and later allegedly used bazookas, napalm, or rocket launchers against Plaintiff on 

the freeway, in stores, or at her yacht; (7) the U.S. Army engaged in “Satanism group rape” during 

which victims allegedly were beaten, thrown over a cliff, and murdered “during satanic occult 

ritual ceremonies where the heart is ripped out of the chest”; (8) the “Fort Meade-NSA Army” sent 

fighter jets to drop bombs on Plaintiff’s house and yacht, but supposedly were prevented from 

doing so by the Air Force; (9) the National Security Agency and Department of Homeland 

Security attempted to arrest Plaintiff and have her raped and murdered in a California jail; (10) 

Defendants and others used satellite-based electromagnetic “voice on the skull” technology on

Plaintiff, induced dreams to suggest injury or death, induced pornographic dreams, and tortured 

Plaintiff by purported “non-stop computer talk”; and (11) Defendants and others allegedly used 

sexual “computer talk” on men with whom Plaintiff attempted to conduct business relationships, 

purportedly causing the men to “think completely wrong” about Plaintiff and ruining Plaintiff’s 

Case 5:15-cv-01914-LHK Document 19 Filed 07/22/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Case Nos. 15-CV-00643-LHK; 15-CV-01803-LHK; 15-CV-01914-LHK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINTS 

WITH PREJUDICE

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

business. ECF No. 1 at 21-23, 32, 35, 39-45, 60, 82; ECF No. 1-1 at 7, 16, 22, 26-27.1

In addition to these complaints, Plaintiff has filed twenty-nine motions over the past few 

months seeking various forms of relief related to the above allegations. See ECF Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 

10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52. For

example, on March 19, 2015, Plaintiff requested an order from the Court for “immediate early 

release of . . . , in one lump sum, after taxes, Two Billion, five hundred Million (after taxes) USD” 

from the U.S. Treasury. ECF No. 21 at 2.

2

As the foregoing makes clear, Plaintiff’s allegations are patently frivolous. Dismissal is 

therefore appropriate for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better 

Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (holding that a federal court lacks 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” (internal quotation 

marks omitted)); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A paid complaint 

that is obviously frivolous does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction, and may be 

dismissed sua sponte . . . .” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Reviewing 

allegations identical to those presented here, U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell

dismissed Plaintiff’s lawsuit in the Central District. See Case No. 15-00573 (C.D. Cal.), ECF No. 

5. In so doing, Judge O’Connell adopted U.S. Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick’s conclusion that 

“the allegations of the present Complaint are frivolous and delusional.” Id. at 3. The allegations 

are no different here.

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES all of Plaintiff’s pending motions and, because 

amendment would be futile, DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaints in Case Nos. 

15-00643 (N.D. Cal.), 15-01803 (N.D. Cal.), and 15-01914 (N.D. Cal.). See, e.g., Cain v. City of 

 

1 Unless otherwise indicated, ECF references are to the docket of Case No. 15-00643.

2 On March 30, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for an emergency temporary 

restraining order and referred Plaintiff to the Federal Legal Assistance Self-Help Center 

(“FLASH”) at the San Jose Courthouse for assistance. ECF No. 57.

Case 5:15-cv-01914-LHK Document 19 Filed 07/22/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Case Nos. 15-CV-00643-LHK; 15-CV-01803-LHK; 15-CV-01914-LHK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINTS 

WITH PREJUDICE

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

Ventura, No. CV 11-5390-DMG E, 2011 WL 4403290, at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2011)

(dismissing with prejudice a plaintiff’s complaint alleging “surveillance by military jets and 

helicopters” and “purported torture by means of bioelectromagnetic devices and microwaves 

emitted from satellites”), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 11-5390-DMG E, 2011 

WL 4403288 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2011); Bivolarevic v. U.S. CIA, No. C 09-4620 SBA, 2010 WL 

890147, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2010) (dismissing with prejudice a plaintiff’s complaint alleging 

“that the CIA has subjected her to ‘voice to skull technology’ which it is using as a ‘mind control 

weapon’” because “[t]hese are precisely the type of frivolous claims that are subject to dismissal 

for lack of jurisdiction”).

The Clerk shall close the case files.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01914-LHK Document 19 Filed 07/22/15 Page 4 of 4