Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03986/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03986-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

RICHARD B. JENNINGS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-03986 WHA

DISMISSAL ORDER

Plaintiff Richard B. Jennings has filed the same lawsuit against the same defendant in

the same court for the third time. The other two were dismissed as without factual or legal

merit. The complaint in the instant case is therefore DISMISSED without leave to amend. 

On April 25, 2005, plaintiff filed a disjointed complaint against the United States

alleging that the FBI had invaded his privacy. Complaint, Jennings v. United States, No. C 05-

1690 (Apr. 25, 2005 N.D. Cal.). On July 1, plaintiff filed another pleading in a new case,

leveling substantially the same accusations. Request for Orders to Stop Harassment, Jennings

v. Mueller, No. C 05-2726 (July 1, 2005 N.D. Cal.). On July 6, this Court stated that the

complaint in C 05-1690 appeared “delusional” and ordered plaintiff to submit “a sworn

statement detailing the events allegedly giving rise to a claim for relief” by August 4, 2005, or

face dismissal (Order to Show Cause). On August 5, this court issued another such order in

Mueller, noting the similarity of the charges. It gave plaintiff a deadline of August 19 (Order to

Show Cause). Plaintiff did not submit any such statements. Final judgment was entered against

plaintiff in case C 05-1690 on August 5 and in Mueller on August 22 (Judgments). On October
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

3, the complaint in the instant action was filed. It is an almost verbatim repeat of plaintiff’s

complaint in C 05-1690. The only new parts state, in total:

• “The Plaintiff requests an injunction and damages against the

government for the violation of his Constitutional right of privacy

through Amendments 9 and 14 and within the penumbras of

various provisions of the Bill of Rights.”

• “The plaintiff experienced many technical problems at various

locations to include libraries and fax centers trying to contact

various government agencies via computer or fax.”

• He cites an additional authority for claiming a violation of law in

the FBI’s alleged monitoring of him: California Penal Code

Section 6325(a). There is no such section in the Penal Code.

• He adds a complaint that the FBI “airs” his “intents and position”

through special microphones to anyone that may listen on public

transportation “in Northern California as well as Salt Lake City

Utah.”

• He expands the geographic scope of the FBI’s alleged illegal acts

to New York.

• “While waiting for the FBI to acknowledge its involvement in this

harassment, the Plaintiff was sent to jail twice, both times for

approximately 2 months and suffered inhumane abuse waiting for

the FBI to take responsibility.”

• He claims that invasion of privacy is a right, privilege or immunity

covered by 42 U.S.C. 1983. 

• He seeks general, punitive and exemplary damages. 

These new claims are too insubstantial to confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon this

court. All other claims are barred because they are identical to those previously dismissed. 

For these reasons, the above-captioned case is DISMISSED without leave to amend.

Plaintiff is ORDERED not to file another complaint with substantially the same allegations. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE