United States District Court, N.D. California
October 18, 2005.
ROBERT B. RAVENSCROFT, JR., Plaintiff,
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
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.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.