Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01569/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01569-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Qiu Min Ji
Plaintiff
National Security
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

QIU MIN JI,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENT AND

OTHER AGENTS KNOWN AND

UNKNOWN,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 15-01569 LB

ORDER (1) DISCHARGING THE

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND (2)

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND

MOTION FOR AN EARLY CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff Qui Min Ji, who is proceeding pro se, filed a document titled,

“Complaint Disclose the Forever Mystery of our Cyber Security,” against “National Security Agent

and other Agents Known or Unknown.” (Complaint, ECF No. 3.) The gist of Plaintiff’s complaint

is that a Chinese spy who resides in the United States has been controlling the Internet for over four

years. This Chinese spy, at the “NSA’s” direction or permission, implanted multiple biosensors into

Plaintiff’s brain and uses them to control Plaintiff. Somehow, FCC regulations regarding DNS name

registration are involved, too. 

In the complaint, Plaintiff never describes the agent(s) sued, never alleges a specific legal claim

against the agent(s), and never alleges why this court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. 

Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and she did not meet her burden to establish

subject-matter jurisdiction, the court ordered, the court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this

action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 

Case 3:15-cv-01569-LB Document 11 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff responded to the order to show cause on April 15, 2015. (Response, ECF No. 8.) She

still does not identify a specific legal claim. Instead, she provides further discussion about her mindcontrol allegations. She says that she sued the “NSA,” which could stand for National Security

Agent (the name of the Defendant in this action) or it could stand for the National Security Agency

(an agency of the United States government). She also does not explain why the court has subjectmatter jurisdiction over this action. 

Still, given that it appears that Plaintiff sued either an agency of the United States government or

an national security agent, and her allegations sound in tort, the court presumes that she could intend

to allege a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or the Federal Tort Claims Act, both of which would

provide this court with federal question subject-matter jurisdiction. While the court has doubts

about the sufficiency of these claims, Plaintiff paid the filing fee and did not apply to proceed in

forma pauperis, so the court does not conduct a frivolousness review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 

Accordingly, the court discharges its order to show cause.

The court reminds Plaintiff that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “[i]f a

defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its

own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or

order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the

failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Here, Plaintiff filed

her complaint on April 6, 2015. This means that, absent good cause, she has until August 4, 2015 to

serve Defendant(s) with her complaint and the summons. Failure to do so could result in the

dismissal of the action without prejudice.

Finally, the court notes that Plaintiff filed two documents on April 16, 2015, both of which are

titled as “motions.” (See “Motion: Yuan Sun’s Internet & Computer Control Comes to Court,” ECF

No. 9; “Motion 1: NSA & Yuan Sun’s Intensive Killing Efforts,” ECF No. 10.) In the first

document, Plaintiff does not actually ask the court to do anything other than review the document

itself. In the second document, after providing further factual allegations, Plaintiff says that an early

case management conference is necessary. On this record, the court does not believe that an early

case management conference is warranted. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiff’s second request

Case 3:15-cv-01569-LB Document 11 Filed 04/24/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

for one. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01569-LB Document 11 Filed 04/24/15 Page 3 of 3