Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05735/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05735-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eowyn Cts. Vbb. De La Vega
Plaintiff
Office of the Presidency of the United States of America
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EOWYN CTS VBB DE LA VEGA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Defendant. /

No. C 07-05735 WHA

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Pro se plaintiff Eowyn, Cts. VBB de La Vega seeks one billion dollars in damages from

the Office of the Presidency of the United States of America. This order DISMISSES this action

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

On September 11, 2007, plaintiff filed a complaint in the San Francisco Superior Court. 

On November 2, 2007, the United States Attorney’s Office learned about the lawsuit when

researching plaintiff’s other lawsuit, Eowyn Cts. De la Vega v. Bureau of Diplomatic Security,

Case No. CGC 07-464542 on the San Francisco Superior Court website. The USAO was not

properly served under FRCP 4. Copies of the summons and complaint were obtained from the

Superior Court and they constitute the only process, pleading or order. This action has been

removed to district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441 because plaintiff appears to allege a tort

claim against the federal government. See 28 U.S.C. 1331; 28 U.S.C. 1346, 2671 et seq.

The complaint is completely incomprehensible, sometimes lapsing into scrawls and

symbols. Where the complaint states “[t]his court is the proper court because,” plaintiff

Case 3:07-cv-05735-WHA Document 8 Filed 11/30/07 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

checked the following boxes: “injury to person or damage to personal property occurred in its

jurisdictional area,” and “other (specify).” She wrote, “a BREAK. STUDIO — TORTURE —

SP [circled] — RTA[circled]eric Borden E [circled]— c [circled] Viol. THE HOURS. HVBB a

KIDNAP. Crown Victoria. Homelessness, POGROM. 20 yr. Divorce — custody filed on my

birthday . . . . DISCOVERY [unintelligible] MASSIVE ABUSES OF WRITS OF HABEAS

CORPUS — RAPE, ASSAULT BATTERY esp. by security forces, elected officials USA”

(Notice of Rem. Exh. A at 4).

In the declaration attached to the complaint, plaintiff wrote, “To draw your own

conclusions, is your expertise; not your right. This brief is herein: COMPLAINT to

DEFECTION, to which the Offices of the PRESIDENCY, America . . . is named, as

COORESPONDENT [sic] . . . These offices i.e., since 1955 . . . IKE —> Win. Jefferson Clinton

—> Geo. W. Bush, (Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter) et al . . . due atrociously

RENT.CLOAK.ADOPT.CA.1955, MASS. 1951, von.gustafson — BLACK; of plaintiff, an a

PRODIGY” and so on and so forth (id. at 6).

Dismissal is proper under FRCP 12(b)(6) where there is either a “lack of a cognizable

legal theory” or “the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In resolving a Rule

12(b)(6) motion, the Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff, accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, and determine whether plaintiff can

prove any set of facts to support a claim that would merit relief. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,

80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, plaintiff’s complaint is completely

incomprehensible. Even when construed in the light most favorable to her, the fragmented

sentences and symbols do not come close to a cognizable legal theory, nor do they represent

facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. 

Accordingly this order finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted. This order also finds that no chance to amend need be given. Plaintiff’s

allegations make clear that none of her proffered theories will cure the jurisdictional defect. For

Case 3:07-cv-05735-WHA Document 8 Filed 11/30/07 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

that reason, this order DISMISSES the complaint WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Clerk shall

close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05735-WHA Document 8 Filed 11/30/07 Page 3 of 3