|
Lawsuit (1993) vs. Clinton, Carter, etc.
by Teri Smith Tyler, Plaintiff-Cyborg
Teri Smith Tyler, Plaintiff-Cyborg
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.
|
|