Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01709/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01709-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MELANIE C. LATRONICA,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DOUBLE TREE BY HILTON, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-01709-DMR 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND 

Re: Dkt. No. 1 

Plaintiff Melanie Latronica filed a Complaint [Docket No. 1] on April 15, 2015. Pursuant 

to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3), the court dismisses the complaint for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction but grants Plaintiff leave to amend.1

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They have no power to consider claims for 

which they lack subject matter jurisdiction. See Chen-Cheng Wang ex rel. United States v. FMC 

Corp., 975 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1992). Federal courts can only adjudicate cases that the 

Constitution or Congress authorize them to adjudicate. Those cases involve diversity of 

citizenship (where the parties are from different states), a federal question (arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States), or cases to which the United States is a party. 

See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insur. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994). Federal courts are 

 

1

 A magistrate judge generally must obtain the consent of the parties to enter dispositive rulings 

and judgments in a civil case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). However, in cases such as this one, 

where the plaintiff has consented but not served the defendants, “all parties have consented 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1),” and a magistrate judge therefore “‘may conduct any or all 

proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case.’” Gaddy 

v. McDonald, No. CV 11-08271 SS, 2011 WL 5515505, at *1 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) 

(quoting § 636(c)(1)) (citing United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995)); 

Third World Media, LLC v. Doe, No. C 10-04470 LB, 2011 WL 4344160, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 

15, 2011)); see also Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that magistrate 

judge had jurisdiction to dismiss action as frivolous without consent of defendants because 

defendants had not yet been served and therefore were not parties). 

Case 4:15-cv-01709-DMR Document 5 Filed 04/24/15 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 Californi

a

presumptively without jurisdiction over civil cases and the burden of establishing the contrary 

rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. at 377. “If the court determines at any time that it 

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). See 

also Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A judge, 

however, may dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction.”) “District courts have the 

authority to dismiss complaints founded on ‘wholly fanciful’ factual allegations for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted). 

Here, the claims alleged by Plaintiff are clearly baseless and state no basis for this Court’s 

jurisdiction. The Court is unable to discern from Plaintiff’s complaint what claim she is alleging 

against whom, and what relief she is seeking from the Court. Over fifty individuals and/or entities 

are named as Defendants (e.g., Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, Judge Anthony Ishii, Judge John 

Kirihara, the Xerox Corporation, “Gazarians nut company,” the FlanaganTzu Chi Buddhist 

Association). Some are not identifiable, including “Robbie,” “Mango doe,” “The Marsh’s all,” 

“Red Devil,” and “The Vances.” Many of the Defendants listed in the caption have no allegations 

directed toward them. See Compl. at 1. The allegations against Defendants are entirely 

incoherent, reciting claims of “bondage,” “burning the skin & eyes/Torture,” “non-stop identity 

theft,” “chattel game-playing” and “neurocybernetics.” Id. Half a page of the Complaint is 

simply a list of hotels in California, with no allegation of how these hotels relate to Plaintiff’s 

claims. Id. at 3-4. The following sentences are typical of the remainder of the Complaint: 

“Chattel personality capitalis of the head, deprived persons. 

(lockheedmartin). Anima Mundi, Amima Modulator, violations of 

the prefrontal cortex, medial temporal lobes and prefrontal lobes to 

add to, Homeopathy experiments and gross labbing of the chattels, 

capital punishment, Double Tree Imposters et all. The only way 

these people can profit, is by destroying good people who are 

blessed.” Compl. at 2 (emphasis in original). 

“Technical aspect of and or informative language to use when 

addressing internal technical violations to add to what’s known and 

reminded about on page 7 of this pleading complaint, that Plaintiff 

Miss Latronica must remind the court of the Court Jurisdiction to 

relieve her of all of this, Plaintiff(s) request for order of the Court, 

Legal Remedies and Judicial Remedies as authorized by the power 

of the Court to do so.” Compl. at 4. 

Case 4:15-cv-01709-DMR Document 5 Filed 04/24/15 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 Californi

a

“The people who were fraudulent concealment and the destroying 

and profiting of f of chattels ML does and gross sick (rp). Mass 

bodily destruction and gross inhumanity that’s sick and 

dehumanizing beyond.” Compl. at 6 (emphasis in original). 

“The defendants are still causing harm at grocery stores with 

tampered with products placed on the shelves at the stores and at the 

store, recently Plaintiff was violated by one of the Defendants sons 

when switching the hot sauce he lied when Plaintiff ask him if he 

had done that he lied to her face that was mentioned so as a 

reminder. At target plaintiff was violated with vitamin water that 

was so sweet, it was poisoned with a from [sic] of rat poison.” 

Compl. at 8. 

“(MTLINTHEMOTH) 

(VIBRATINGTECHCLDVCESONTHETONG). -- Gross. Slavery 

to filthy and garbage. 

(WLKINGTLTS)(ANDRPNGDWNTHTHRTWITOUTACONDM) 

including the doctors and the dentists are deserving of death. 

Gross (SS). Plaintiff didn’t know why all the ML does were so 

destroyed before again as a reminder before she was put in them. 

So much inhuman dehumanizing suffering, and gross life 

deprivation and programming in their bodies. - One of the 

beautiful girls a ML does is 100% metal.” Compl. at 12 (emphasis 

in original). 

In addition, the motion attaches filings from Plaintiff’s previous cases in this district before 

Judge Gonzalez Rogers and Judge Wilken, in state court, and in the Eastern District of California; 

photocopies of unidentified individuals; a dictionary definition of “chattel slavery”; a lease 

agreement between Plaintiff and Royal Palms Apartments; what appears to be a list of properties 

leased to Time Warner Telecom of Arizona LLC; a list of Stanislaus county judges; an 

encyclopedia entry on Borneo and another entry on cybernetics; information about the Xerox 

Corporation; and the results of Google searches. See Docket No. 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3. 

Plaintiff lists several amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the United Nations Declaration 

of Human Rights, several federal criminal and civil statutes, see Compl. 18-19, though it is unclear 

whether she alleges that any of these were violated, by whom, and under what legal authority she 

is pursuing a claim for their violation. In her prayer for relief, Plaintiff states: 

Plaintiff(s) Pleadings and Requests in accord with Law and Rights 

Mandatory is an absolute right to equitable remedy in the form of 

Injunctions: Prohibatory, Reparative, Preventative, and Permanent, 

that’s Relief, Justice and Restitution and to be able to relocate and 

be safe and with the prosecution of the violators that’s possible. 

Plaintiff will be starting her life with liberty and freedom?, Life is so 

Case 4:15-cv-01709-DMR Document 5 Filed 04/24/15 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 Californi

a

wonderful and is going to be better when: finally never to be a 

victim of these defendants ever again. Plaintiff has the right to 

The release of Plaintiff’s personal property, her life and her 

family including (embros) the knowledge that her family won’t 

fall into the wrong hands. (Defendants have been mentally 

torturing about Plaintiff(s) & (original) eggs, embroyo’s. Plaintiff(s) no longer, no more, not another day be subjected to the 

Defendants Gross Malice, Oppression, and Fraud. The violating 

of a person’s abode and right to life including the chattels in a 

manner that is forbidden is forbidden. 

Compl. at 24-25. 

Plaintiff’s allegations are entirely incomprehensible and arise to the level of “wholly 

fanciful” such that sua sponte dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate at this 

stage. Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1228. 

The court notes that Judge Gonzalez Rogers, who is named as a Defendant in this matter 

(although the Complaint includes no specific allegations directed at her), has presided over two 

cases filed by Plaintiff in this district, both of which were dismissed as frivolous. Judge Gonzalez 

Rogers has repeated “caution[e]d Plaintiff Latronica that repeated frivolous filings may result in 

imposition of a pre-filing order and a declaration that she is a vexatious litigant.” See Latronica v. 

Halfhill, et al., Case No. 14-cv-4257-YGR, Docket No. 9 at 5 (N.D. Cal. September 30, 2014). 

See also Latronica v. United States et al., Case No. 13-cv-5685-YGR, Docket No. 40 at 3 n. 2. 

Judge Gonzalez Rogers also noted that a number of other similar federal court actions had been 

filed by Plaintiff outside this district and had been dismissed as frivolous. Latronica v. Halfhill, 

Docket No. 9 at 5 (noting three cases filed by Plaintiff in the Eastern District of California). 

Finally, Judge Gonzalez Rogers noted that Plaintiff has been declared a vexatious litigant by the 

California state courts. Id. 

 Notwithstanding these circumstances, “a district court should not dismiss a pro se 

complaint without leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the 

complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 

2012) (quotations omitted). 

// 

// 

// 

Case 4:15-cv-01709-DMR Document 5 Filed 04/24/15 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

com

no 

def

Da

The cou

mplaint if sh

later than M

ficiencies no

IT IS S

ated: April 24

urt therefore

he can allege

May 4, 2015

oted in this o

SO ORDER

4, 2015 

e dismisses t

e sufficient fa

5, Plaintiff m

order. 

RED. 

5

he complain

acts to suppo

may file an am

___

DO

Un

nt but grants

ort a finding

mended com

__________

ONNA M. R

nited States M

Plaintiff lea

g of subject m

mplaint that a

___________

RYU 

Magistrate Ju

ave to file an

matter jurisd

addresses th

__________

udge 

n amended 

diction. By 

e 

________ 

Case 4:15-cv-01709-DMR Document 5 Filed 04/24/15 Page 5 of 5