Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03472/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03472-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

PATRICIA RICE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHARLES R. PERRIN; AVON PRODUCTS;

JAY ROCKEFELLER, U.S. senator; “THE

SEVEN DWARFS”; “THE KENNEDY

FAMILY”; “THE GILBERT FAMILY”;

CHRISTOPHER COX, Chairman, Securities

and Exchange Commission; “THE MORMON

CHURCH”; JUDITH HALEVY, Rabbi,

Malibu Jewish Center and Synagogue; “ALL

SYNAGOGUES IN THE U.S.”; JEHOVAH’S

WITNESSES - OAKLAND WEST

CONGREGATION; and LANOY GRANT,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-3472 WHA

DISMISSAL ORDER

This action, styled as an action for collection of a debt and alleging civil RICO

violations, is DISMISSED for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s filings with the

Court are delusional rants. She asks this court to collect “[t]he World Debt and the National

Debt.” She fails to allege any facts to suggest the basis of a civil RICO claim. 

These claims are “so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit,”

and therefore fail to confer subject-matter jurisdiction. See Newburyport Water Co. v. City of

Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904) (holding that federal court had no federal-question

jurisdiction when claims were utterly insubstantial). See also Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31,

33 (1962) (holding that there was no requirement to convene three-judge panel to consider
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

G:\WHAALL\2005Civ\05-03472 Rice\DismissalOrder.wpd 2

constitutionality of state statute when the constitutional issues presented was “frivolous” and

“essentially fictitious”); Hannis Distilling Co. v. City of Baltimore, 216 U.S. 285, 288 (1910)

(“[A]ssumption [of federal jurisdiction] may not be indulged in simply because it appears from

the record that a federal question was averred, if such question be obviously frivolous or plainly

unsubstantial . . . because it is manifestly devoid of merit.”).

For this reason, the case is DISMISSED for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk

is ORDERED TO CLOSE the case and to DISREGARD any future filings in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE