United States District Court, N.D. California
December 2, 2005.
RICHARD B. JENNINGS, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge
Plaintiff Richard B. Jennings has filed the same lawsuit
against the same defendant in the same court for the third time.
The other two were dismissed as without factual or legal merit.
The complaint in the instant case is therefore DISMISSED
without leave to amend.
On April 25, 2005, plaintiff filed a disjointed complaint
against the United States alleging that the FBI had invaded his
privacy. Complaint, Jennings v. United States, No. C 05-1690
(Apr. 25, 2005 N.D. Cal.). On July 1, plaintiff filed another
pleading in a new case, leveling substantially the same
accusations. Request for Orders to Stop Harassment, Jennings v.
Mueller, No. C 05-2726 (July 1, 2005 N.D. Cal.). On July 6, this
Court stated that the complaint in C 05-1690 appeared
"delusional" and ordered plaintiff to submit "a sworn statement
detailing the events allegedly giving rise to a claim for relief"
by August 4, 2005, or face dismissal (Order to Show Cause). On
August 5, this court issued another such order in Mueller,
noting the similarity of the charges. It gave plaintiff a
deadline of August 19 (Order to Show Cause). Plaintiff did not
submit any such statements. Final judgment was entered against
plaintiff in case C 05-1690 on August 5 and in Mueller on
August 22 (Judgments). On October 3, the complaint in the instant action was filed. It is an almost
verbatim repeat of plaintiff's complaint in C 05-1690. The only
new parts state, in total:
"The Plaintiff requests an injunction and damages
against the government for the violation of his
Constitutional right of privacy through Amendments 9
and 14 and within the penumbras of various provisions
of the Bill of Rights."
"The plaintiff experienced many technical problems
at various locations to include libraries and fax
centers trying to contact various government agencies
via computer or fax."
He cites an additional authority for claiming a
violation of law in the FBI's alleged monitoring of
him: California Penal Code Section 6325(a). There is
no such section in the Penal Code.
He adds a complaint that the FBI "airs" his
"intents and position" through special microphones to
anyone that may listen on public transportation "in
Northern California as well as Salt Lake City Utah."
He expands the geographic scope of the FBI's
alleged illegal acts to New York.
"While waiting for the FBI to acknowledge its
involvement in this harassment, the Plaintiff was
sent to jail twice, both times for approximately 2
months and suffered inhumane abuse waiting for the
FBI to take responsibility."
He claims that invasion of privacy is a right,
privilege or immunity covered by 42 U.S.C. 1983.
He seeks general, punitive and exemplary damages.
These new claims are too insubstantial to confer subject-matter
jurisdiction upon this court. All other claims are barred because
they are identical to those previously dismissed.
For these reasons, the above-captioned case is DISMISSED
without leave to amend. Plaintiff is ORDERED not to file
another complaint with substantially the same allegations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.