Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RAVENSCROFT v. SHORE

United States District Court, N.D. California


October 18, 2005.

ROBERT B. RAVENSCROFT, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
STAN SHORE, d.b.a. SHORE DEVELOPMENT GROUP and AM-CAL SERVICES, INC., Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge

DISMISSAL ORDER

This "pleading," styled as a registration with this Court of a foreign judgment, is DISMISSED for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's filings with the Court are delusional, fantastic gibberish. They are "so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit," and therefore fail to confer subject-matter jurisdiction. See Newburyport Water Co. v. City of Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904) (holding that federal court had no federal-question jurisdiction when claims were utterly insubstantial); see also Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31, 33 (1962) (holding that there was no requirement to convene three-judge panel to consider constitutionality of state statute when the constitutional issues presented was "frivolous" and "essentially fictitious"); Hannis Distilling Co. v. City of Baltimore, 216 U.S. 285, 288 (1910) ("[A]ssumption [of federal jurisdiction] may not be indulged in simply because it appears from the record that a federal question was averred, if such question be obviously frivolous or plainly unsubstantial, either because it is manifestly devoid of merit, or because its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that the questions sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy."); Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin, 289 U.S. 103, 108 (1933) (holding that court lacked jurisdiction when federal question presented had been foreclosed by two previous decisions and therefore "no longer the subject of controversy").

For this reason, the case is DISMISSED for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is ORDERED TO CLOSE the case and to DISREGARD any future filings in this case.

  IT IS SO ORDERED.

20051018

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.