My Fave Lawsuit.
> Teri Smith Tyler, Plaintiff,
> v.
> James Carter, William Clinton, Ross Perot, American Cyanamid, Iron
> Mountain Security Corporation, Defense Intelligence Agency, IBM, David
> Rockerfeller, Rockerfeller Fund, BCCI, Nasa, Defendants.
>
> United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
>
> 92 Civ. 8658 (CSH)
>
> Filed & Decided November 5, 1993
>
> Counsel: Teri Smith Tyler, Pro Se.
>
> Mary Jo White, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New
> York, 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007.
>
> Attorneys for Defendants President Clinton, Defense Intelligence Agency
> and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, William J. Hoffman,
> Esq., Assistant United States Attorney.
>
> Before District Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr.
> Memorandum Opinion & Order
>
> This case is before the Court on a motion to dismiss by defendants
> President Clinton, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and National
> Aeronautics and Space Administration (the "Federal defendants"). Plaintiff
> has also filed an order to show cause why the World Trade Center Bombing
> Trial should not be enjoined. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's
> order to show cause is denied, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to
> dismiss the complaint.
>
> BACKGROUND
>
> Plaintiff Teri Smith Tyler, appearing pro se, filed a complaint in
> December 1992 alleging a bizarre conspiracy involving the defendants to
> enslave and oppress certain segments of our society. Plaintiff contends
> she is a cyborg, and that she received most of the information which forms
> the basis for her complaint, through "proteus", which I read to be some
> silent, telepathic form of communication. See complaint, at 1, and
> Affidavit accompanying November 1993 Order to Show Cause, at P g. She
> asserts that the defendants are involved in the "Iron Mountain Plan",
> which provides for the reinstitutionalization of slavery and "bloodsports"
> (which she identifies as death-hunting [n1] and witch-hunting), and the
> oppression of political dissidents, herself included. Plaintiff's
> complaint alleges a number of personal indignities visited upon her by
> defendants: "strafing of my dormitory room by planes and helicopters, the
> electronic bugging of my student rooms and apartments, deliberate noise
> harassment, blasting of loud rock music with lyrics designed for
> witch-hunts (music about social pariahs) . . . students following me
> around to prevent me from studying, whispering campaigns and social
> ostrification . . ." Complaint, at 1-2. Plaintiff also makes the following
> allegations against the defendants. Former President Jimmy Carter was the
> secret head of the Ku Klux Klan; Bill Clinton is the biological son of
> Jimmy Carter; President Clinton and Ross Perot have made fortunes in the
> death-hunting industry, and are responsible for the murder of at least 10
> million black women in concentration camps, their bodies sold for meat and
> their skin turned into leather products. The defendants are also
> responsible for breeding farms, which turn out 2,000 black girls a year,
> who are then sold for recreational murder or as human pets. Additionally,
> the defendants utilize weather control and earthquake technology to
> threaten other countries that object to the Iron Mountain plan.
>
> Plaintiff asks the Court to grant her the following relief:
>
> 1. $ 5.6 billion in compensatory and punitive damages;
>
> 2. A physical accounting of all black women born since 1940, including
> their present whereabouts, and for those who have died, an investigation
> into how they died;
>
> 3. The purchase of land in Africa for the emigration of abused black
> women;
>
> 4. The bringing to justice of those responsible for the American
> holocaust;
>
> 5. An investigation into the foster care system, and a physical
> accounting of all black children placed into foster care;
>
> 6. An end to slavery in the United States;
>
> 7. The end of the cyborg program run by NASA, the Defense Intelligence
> Agency, American Cyanimid and IBM;
>
> 8. An end to the organ-donor program.
>
> While plaintiff was trying to effect proper service of the summons and
> complaint on the defendants, she made a number of appeals to the Court for
> interim relief in the form of Orders to Show Cause. On January 20, 1993,
> she asked the Court to enjoin the inauguration of President Clinton. The
> Court denied her request as moot. In August, 1993, she moved to enjoin the
> installation of Louis Freeh as Director of the FBI on the ground that
> Clinton appointed Freeh only so Freeh could cover up evidence of Clinton's
> wrongdoing. That motion was denied, as it lacked a sufficient evidentiary
> basis.
>
> Presently before the Court is an Order to Show Cause why the Court should
> not enjoin the trial in the World Trade Center bombing case, now
> proceeding in this Court before Judge Duffy. Plaintiff alleges that
> President Clinton ordered the bombing of the World Trade Center in order
> to justify war with Iraq. In support of her application, plaintiff
> describes certain "proteus" communications she had with other individuals.
> Plaintiff alleges that the United States invaded Panama and arrested
> General Noriega because Noriega objected to United States soldiers raiding
> Indian tribes in Central America for child sex slaves to torture in
> American cocaine based thrill-killing rackets. Plaintiff contends she
> wrote to Noriega asking him to join in her lawsuit, but that United States
> soldiers holding Noriega beat him when he asked for his mail.
>
> Plaintiff asserts that in 1988, Rajiv Ghandi spoke to her through
> "proteus" and informed her that he was being held prisoner and sexually
> abused by a man whom he had caught stealing from the funds generated by
> the Bhopal disaster settlement. According to plaintiff, Yasser Arafat
> tried to confirm Ghandi's tale of abuse on behalf of the plaintiff, to no
> avail.
>
> Plaintiff additionally contends that Gulf War against Iraq was undertaken
> so that America could restock its sexual slavery camps, which had been
> depleted. According to plaintiff, 40,000 Iraqi soldiers captured by the
> United States, selected for their physical attractiveness, have been
> brought to this country where they were "being beaten, forced to run
> gauntlets and homosexually gang-raped by American soldiers." Plaintiff
> claims to have confronted Secretary of Defense Cheney with evidence of
> this allegation. Cheney, through "proteus", purportedly told the
> plaintiff, "Well, we were so sick and tired of killing black girls. We
> just had to put some variety back into our death-hunting industry. And
> they (Persians) are incredibly beautiful. The beauty of the face heightens
> the pleasure of the kill. I know of no higher pleasure than the gang-rape
> of exceedingly beautiful people."
>
> Additionally, plaintiff alleges that the Serbian government, the "Nazi
> Bund", the Bank of Commerce and Credit International ("BCCI") are also
> involved in the conspiracy.
>
> Attached to plaintiff's papers, and apparently offered to support her
> claim, are a number of exhibits. Most prominent among the exhibits is a
> book by Robert Ellis Smith entitled Privacy: How to Protect What's Left of
> It (1979), and a four page illustrated pamphlet advertising pornographic
> movies starring young men. Plaintiff has circled a number of photos of
> naked men who appear to be of Mediterranean or Latin American descent,
> which I interpret as her evidence that Iraqi and Central American men are
> enslaved in pornographic "rackets".
>
> Plaintiff appears to have effected service on few of the named defendants.
> Although IBM and BCCI each made an appearance (and successfully moved to
> have the claims against them dismissed), plaintiff never filed proof of
> service against either defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(g). Service
> was eventually made against the Federal Defendants, but it may have been
> effected more than 120 days after filing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j).
>
> IBM's motion to dismiss the complaint against it was granted by Order
> dated September 29, 1993. That same order dismissed the claims against
> BCCI, to the extent they could be asserted against the Superintendent who
> was supervising the dissolution of BCCI. Currently pending before the
> Court is a motion to dismiss by the remaining defendants, and the Order to
> Show Cause to enjoin the World Trade Center bombing trial.
>
> DISCUSSION
>
> In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338, 109 S. Ct. 1827
> (1989), a state prisoner commenced a federal action by filing a motion to
> proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint under 42 U.S.C. s 1983 charging
> prison officials with violating his constitutional rights. The in forma
> pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. s 1915(d), authorizes courts to dismiss an in
> forma pauperis claim if, inter alia, the action is "frivolous." The
> district court dismissed the complaint sua sponte as frivolous under s
> 1915(d) on the ground that it failed to state a claim upon which relief
> could be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
> Procedure. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed the
> court of appeals. It held that "a complaint filed in forma pauperis is not
> automatically frivolous within the meaning of s 1915(d) because it fails
> to state a claim." Id. at 331.
>
> The Court in Neitzke contrasted the judicial screening process available
> under the in forma pauperis statute with cases where the plaintiff pays
> the filing fees. Section 1915(d) screening reflects, the Court stated,
> congressional recognition "that a litigant whose filing fees and court
> costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an
> economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or
> repetitive lawsuits." Id. at 324. A complaint filed by a fee-paying
> litigant subject to economic incentives can be dismissed under Rule
> 12(b)(6), but in such a case, the Court stated, Rule 12(b)(6) "does not
> countenance . . . dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's
> factual allegations. District judges looking to dismiss claims on such
> grounds must look elsewhere for legal support." Id. at 327 (footnote
> omitted). But the Court left open the question whether a district judge
> could ever dismiss a complaint sua sponte under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at 329
> n.8 ("We have no occasion to pass judgment, however, on the permissible
> scope, if any, of sua sponte dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6).").
>
> Among the factual claims subject to s 1915(d) dismissal as frivolous "are
> claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which
> federal district judges are all too familiar." Id. at 328. The claims of
> plaintiff at bar may be so characterized. The question is whether such
> claims asserted by a fee-paying plaintiff are subject to sua sponte
> dismissal by a district court under Rule 12(b)(6). I hold that they are.
>
> A plaintiff asserting fantastic or delusional claims should not, by
> payment of a filing fee, obtain a license to consume limited judicial
> resources and put defendants to effort and expense. The policies arguing
> against sua sponte Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals do not apply in these
> circumstances. The author of claims as irrational as these cannot be
> regarded as subject to the economic incentive to refrain from frivolous
> actions imposed by filing fees and court costs upon rational paying
> litigants. Similarly, a sua sponte dismissal of a complaint such as this
> cannot reasonably be said to deprive such a plaintiff of the opportunity
> of "clarifying his factual allegations so as to conform with the
> requirements of a valid legal cause of action." Neitzke at 329-30. If this
> Court cannot order sua sponte dismissal of this complaint under Rule
> 12(b)(6), no district court can ever dismiss sua sponte any complaint
> under the Rule.[ n2] I do not think that is the law.
>
> The Clerk of the Court is directed to dismiss the complaint as to all
> defendants with prejudice and without costs. The Clerk is directed to
> refund to plaintiff her filing fee. Plaintiff's motion by Order to Show
> Cause to enjoin the World Trade Center bombing trial is denied.
>
> It is SO ORDERED.
>
> Dated: New York, New York
> November 5, 1993
> Charkes S, Haight, Jr., U.S.D.J.
>
> FOOTNOTES
>
> [n1] Death-hunting is described by plaintiff as follows: "In
> death-hunting, teams of pimps and harriers (women working for pimps)
> follow a black woman they want to force into sexual slavery and snuff
> rackets, try to wreck her employment prospects, isolate her socially,
> break her up with friends and family, often they try to force her onto
> welfare because it often circumscribes her choice of places to live.
> Sometimes members of a woman's family or her mate will be cooperative or
> part of death-hunting teams because participants get paid." Complaint, at
> 4.
>
> [n2] Although the Federal defendants have moved to dismiss citing Rule
> 12(b)(6), I am dismissing this case sua sponte. Granting the Federal
> defendants' motion to dismiss would affect claims against only those
> defendants. Because I am acting sua sponte, the dismissal is effective as
> to all of the defendants.
>