Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04620/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04620-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vesna Bivolarevic
Plaintiff
U.S. CIA
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

VESNA BIVOLAREVIC, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

U.S. CIA, 

 Defendant. 

Case No: C 09-4620 SBA 

ORDER 

Docket 31, 34, 36, 43 

On September 30, 2009, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against the CIA (presumably 

meaning the Central Intelligence Agency) alleging that she has been subjected to “voice to skull 

technology (in different forms) since . . . January 2005. I learned it is a mind control weapon, and 

this was imposed to me (sic) without my knowledge.” Compl. at 1, Docket 1. 

On January 11, 2010, Plaintiff filed “Request to Check the Validity of the Defendant’s 

Motion to Dissmis (sic) the Complaint.” (Docket 31.) On January 13, 2010, she filed the identical 

motion. (Docket 34.) In turn, both of these motions are identical to the one Plaintiff filed on 

January 6, 2010, and which the Court denied on January 12, 2010. (Docket 32.) Thus, for the 

same reasons, Plaintiff’s motions are denied—again. 

On January 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Request to Defendant for Written Permission to 

Amend the Complaint.” (Docket 26.) This appears to be a request to the Defendant to stipulate to 

the filing of an amended complaint, which Defendant has declined to do. (Docket 38.) To the 

extent that the Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s filing as a motion for leave to amend, such 

request is denied on the ground that such motion is not in compliance with Civil Local Rule 7, 

which governs the filing of motions. Plaintiff is advised to review that provision, as well as 

Case 4:09-cv-04620-SBA Document 43 Filed 02/05/10 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 for guidance on how to properly file a motion for leave to file 

an amended complaint. 

On February 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Request to Defendant for Written Answer: Who is 

Defendant’s Lead Counsel.” (Docket 43.) To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking an order 

compelling Defendant to provide that answer, the request is frivolous. The identity of Defendant’s 

counsel is listed on the various papers filed by Defendant in this action. 

In sum, the above motions are either duplicative of earlier motions and/or frivolous. In its 

Order of January 12, 2010, the Court stated: “Plaintiff is warned that any papers that are not 

authorized by a statute, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court’s Local Rules or are not in 

response to an order of the Court” will not be considered. Plaintiff has ignored that warning and 

continues to file nonsensical requests with the Court. Plaintiff is once again warned that the further 

submission of improper and meritless motions will be deemed grounds for dismissal. Fed.R.Civ.P. 

41(b). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Plaintiff’s “Request to Check the Validity of the Defendant’s Motion to Dissmis 

(sic) the Complaint” is DENIED. 

2. Plaintiff’s “Request to Defendant for Written Permission to Amend the Complaint” 

is DENIED. 

3. Plaintiff’s “Request to Defendant for Written Answer: Who is Defendant’s Lead 

Counsel” is DENIED. 

4. Order terminates Docket Nos. 31, 34, 36 and 43. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 5, 2010 ____________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-04620-SBA Document 43 Filed 02/05/10 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VESNA BIVOLAREVIC, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

U.S. CIA et al, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Case Number: CV09-04620 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District 

Court, Northern District of California. 

That on February 5, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office. 

Vesna Bivolarevic 

P.O. Box 1056 

Redwood City, CA 94064 

Dated: February 5, 2010 

 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 

 

 By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk 

Case 4:09-cv-04620-SBA Document 43 Filed 02/05/10 Page 3 of 3