Doe v. Krause et al
Filing
18
ORDER - Pursuant to the Ninth Circuits September 7, 2012 order, the court hereby orders that Ms. Does complaint is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) for the reasons stated in this courts April 6, 2012 order, but without prejudice, by Judge James L. Robart. (MD, mailed copy of order to pltf)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
8
9
10
JANE DOE,
CASE NO. C12-0322JLR
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
13
KENNETH KRAUSE,
Defendant.
14
15
ORDER FOLLOWING REMAND
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On February 24, 2012, Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a request to proceed in forma
16 pauperis 1 along with a complaint describing a broad conspiracy 2 or “vendetta” 3 against
17
18
19
1
(See App. to Proceed IFP (Dk. # 1).) Ms. Doe’s submission on February 24, 2012, also
included an application for court-appointed counsel (Dkt. # 1-2), and a motion to seal references
21 to her address (Dkt. # 1-1). On March 20, 2012, the court denied Ms. Doe’s motion for court
appointed counsel (Dkt. # 4).
2
(See Compl. (Dkt. # 1-3) at 4, 5, 12, 13, 23.)
22
3
(See id. at 9.)
20
ORDER- 1
1 her involving murder, 4 “systematic rape,” 5 forced prostitution, 6 “imposed starvation,” 7
2 and human trafficking. 8
3
Ms. Doe named as defendants the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), the
4 Department of Homeland Security, the San Diego Office of Assigned Counsel, the San
5 Diego Public Safety Group, and various individuals whom Plaintiff identifies as “peace
6 officers, intelligence, and/or Federal Agents” (collectively, “Defendants”). 9 Plaintiff has
7 also alleged the involvement of various homeowners associations 10 and the Central
8 Intelligence Agency (“CIA”), although the CIA does not appear to be a defendant. 11
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
According to Ms. Doe’s complaint, Defendants conspired to engage in a
massive attack to erroneously make Plaintiff look like a pornographer,
prostitute, child abuser, elderly abuser, crazed terrorist, dangerous crazy
person as to cover up their crimes they committed against her . . . to begin
to make her look like a person capable of a terrorist attack as defendants
did/do have a terrorist act they wish to perform and through their botched
targeting of Plaintiff defendant began to see her as person they could set up
to pin their intended terror attack on, and when that didn’t work they did
seek to kill Plaintiff in other ways and eventually engaged in attempting to
lure her, force her, starve her[,] abduct her, and rape her into prostitution
through defendants human trafficking ring that they cosset in the ESCALA
development and protect through defendants ESCALA HOA & BOARD
MEMBERS, INTELLIGANCE [sic] AGENTS, and DEFENSE employees
& contractors.
17
18
19
20
21
22
4
(See id. at 3.)
(See id.)
6
(See id. at 5.)
7
(See id. at 3.)
8
(See id. at 5.)
9
(See id. at 3.)
10
(See id. at 5.)
11
(See id.)
5
ORDER- 2
1 (Compl. at 5.) 12 Ms. Doe also alleged that Defendants “conspired to drug, abduct, and
2 rape Plaintiffs [sic] roommate” so that she would “leave town” thereby “enabl[ing]
3 [certain defendants] to surreptitiously, deceitfully, illegally, and with deliberate malicious
4 intent rent a room in Plaintiffs residence as to enact premeditated harms, damages, set
5 up’s [sic], future false imprisonment, abuse, and human trafficking against Plaintiff.” (Id.
6 at 6.) Ms. Doe also alleged that Defendants conspired to have hidden video equipment
7 installed in her home and to sexually assault her on video in order to force her into
8 prostitution or make it look like she “gains money through pornography.” (Id. at 6, 12.)
9 Plaintiff alleged that these hidden cameras were later removed with the help of police.
10 (Id. at 10.)
11
On April 6, 2012, the court dismissed Ms. Doe’s complaint under 28 U.S.C.
12 § 1915(e)(2)(B) because it is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
13 granted. (Order (Dkt. # 6) at 10.) The court also dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C.
14 §1406(a) based on lack of venue because “a substantial part of the events or omissions
15 giving rise to the claim occurred” in another judicial district, see 28 U.S.C.
16 §§ 1391(b)(2), 1391(e)(1)(B), namely the Southern District of California. (Id. at 9-10;
17 see generally OSC (Dkt. # 2).) The court’s dismissal, however, was entered with
18 prejudice. (Id. at 10.)
19
20
21
12
These allegations are identical to allegations contained in a complaint filed last year in
the Southern District of California. (See Cause No. 11-cv-2153 (S.D. Cal., filed Sept. 16, 2011
22 [Dkt. # 1].)
ORDER- 3
1
Ms. Doe appealed the court’s order of dismissal. (See Not. of App. (Dkt. # 12).)
2 On September 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order that vacated
3 this court’s order of dismissal with prejudice “because a substantial question existed
4 regarding [Ms. Doe’s] competency to proceed pro se.” (9th Cir. Ord. (Dkt. # 16) at 1.)
5 Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for entry of dismissal without
6 prejudice. (Id.) On October 31, 2012, the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate with respect
7 to its order. (See Dkt. # 17.)
8
Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s September 7, 2012 order, the court hereby orders
9 that Ms. Doe’s complaint is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
10 § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) for the reasons stated in this court’s April 6,
11 2012 order, but without prejudice.
12
Dated this 5th day of November, 2012.
13
15
A
16
JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
ORDER- 4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
