Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01822/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01822-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kristi Lee Durschmidt, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

United States of America, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1822-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it Omniflight Helicopters, Inc.’s motion to dismiss (doc. 14),

plaintiff’s response and “motion to bar/stay the motion to dismiss” (docs. 50, 51),

Omniflight’s response to the motion to bar/stay (doc. 55) and reply or alternatively motion

to quash (doc. 56). We also have before us a motion to dismiss by Scott Smith, Mayor of the

City of Mesa, and Frank Milstead, Mesa Chief of Police (doc. 40), and by The Boeing

Company (doc. 42). No responses to these motions to dismiss have been filed and the time

for doing so has expired. 

Defendants Omniflight and Boeing move to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant

to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff alleges that she has

been tortured, assaulted, and harassed by the federal government and others. She names as

defendants the FBI, CIA, EPA, FAA, Department of Homeland Security, Department of

Defense, Department of Justice, the cities of Chandler and Mesa, Armstrong Laboratories,

Case 2:10-cv-01822-FJM Document 60 Filed 12/08/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Omniflight Helicopters, and Boeing. 

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient facts, which

accepted as true, “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is

liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 556. Determining whether a complaint states a

plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the court to draw on its

judicial experience and common sense. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). 

Plaintiff makes no specific factual allegation against Omniflight. There are only two

references to Boeing, both alleging only that it is “possibly” a contractor of the federal

government. Amended Complaint at 2, 3. Instead, she generally alleges that unspecified

defendants “air assaulted” her by using radiation or other biological warfare with “low flying

air crafts directly and repeatedly over [her] house,” and “inflicted torture and other abuses”

24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the last 7 years. Amended Complaint at 2. Plaintiff can

make no rational or plausible argument in law or fact to support the claims raised in her

amended complaint. Omniflight and Boeing’s motions to dismiss are granted (docs. 14, 42).

Plaintiff’s motion to bar/stay Omniflight’s motion to dismiss, which is better characterized

as a response to the motion to dismiss, is denied (doc. 51). 

Defendants Scott Smith and Frank Milstead move to dismiss plaintiff’s amended

complaint for insufficient service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). When a

defendant challenges the sufficiency of service, the plaintiff bears the burden of

demonstrating that proper service was made. Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th

Cir. 2004). Plaintiff has not responded to this motion, which itself is reason to grant the

motion to dismiss. See LRCiv 7.2(i). Defendants argue that, pursuant to Rule 4(e), Fed. R.

Civ. P., plaintiff was required to serve them personally. Instead, plaintiff mailed certified

letters. See docs. 21 and 32. This is not sufficient service under Rule 4(e). Accordingly,

defendants Smith and Milstead’s motion to dismiss is granted (doc. 40).

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Omniflight’s motion to dismiss (doc. 14),

Case 2:10-cv-01822-FJM Document 60 Filed 12/08/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

GRANTING Smith and Milstead’s motion to dismiss (doc. 40), and GRANTING Boeing’s

motion to dismiss (doc. 42).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s motion to bar/stay the motion

to dismiss (doc. 51).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Omniflight’s motion to quash as moot

(doc. 56).

DATED this 7th day of December, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01822-FJM Document 60 Filed 12/08/10 Page 3 of 3