Case 1:08-cv-01624-EGS Document 8 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 6
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`______________________________
`)
`BETTY ANN NEWBY,
`Plaintiff,
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`) Civ. Action No. 08-1624 (EGS)
`)
`
`v.
`BARACK H. OBAMA,1 et al.,
`Defendants.
`______________________________)
`
`))
`
`))
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed suit against various
`federal officials and public figures alleging that they engaged
`in surveillance of her and conspired against her in order to deny
`her constitutional rights. Pending before the Court is
`defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject
`matter jurisdiction, which was filed on March 23, 2009.2 Upon
`careful consideration of defendants’ motion to dismiss, the
`applicable law, the entire record herein, and for the reasons
`stated below, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss.3
`
`1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Barack
`H. Obama, in his official capacity as President of the United
`States, is substituted as defendant in place of former President
`George W. Bush.
`2 The motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of all
`government employees sued in their official capacity.
`3 On May 7, 2009, the Court issued an Order advising the
`pro se plaintiff of her obligations under the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court. See Docket
`Entry 5. The Court ordered plaintiff to file her opposition or
`
`

`
`Case 1:08-cv-01624-EGS Document 8 Filed 02/02/10 Page 2 of 6
`
`I.
`
`Background
`On September 22, 2008, plaintiff Betty Ann Newby filed a
`complaint against a multitude of defendants including President
`George W. Bush, President George H. W. Bush, Vice President Dick
`Cheney, Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., and numerous other
`members of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of
`the United States Government, as well as other individuals.
`In her complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants have
`committed various violations of her constitutional rights,
`including depriving her of the right to vote and destroying her
`property. See generally Compl.4 The eighteen page handwritten
`complaint sets forth vague legal arguments generally centered
`around plaintiff’s failed attempts to participate in the
`confirmation hearings of Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., Justice
`
`other response to defendants’ motion by June 8, 2009, and further
`notified her that, if she failed to file a timely response, the
`Court may treat the motions as conceded. To date, no response
`has been filed. The Court’s records do not reflect that any mail
`sent to plaintiff has been returned to the Clerk of Court as
`undeliverable. Nor is there a notification of a change of
`plaintiff’s address. The Court, therefore, treats defendants’
`motion as conceded; however, because the Court concludes that it
`does not have jurisdiction, it dismisses the action as to all
`defendants.
`4 In their motion to dismiss, defendants refer to a type-
`written version of the complaint that was apparently served on
`defendants along with the handwritten version that was filed in
`this case. Defendants state that this version of the complaint
`is attached to their motion to dismiss; however, no such “amended
`complaint” is attached to the motion. Because this version of
`the complaint was not filed with the Court, the Court will cite
`to the original complaint filed at Docket Entry 1.
`2
`
`

`
`Case 1:08-cv-01624-EGS Document 8 Filed 02/02/10 Page 3 of 6
`
`Samuel Alito, Jr., and several other Federal officials. See
`generally Compl.
`Plaintiff also asserts that she is under surveillance by
`various government agencies and officials who are stalking her
`and conspiring against her. See generally Compl. Specifically,
`plaintiff alleges that “George W. Bush and his officials and
`agents stalked her, interrupted her by having a Kinko[s] employee
`sound a false alarm, and used one of its agents to shut-down the
`copy machines to keep her from filing the mandamus application to
`enjoin the Senate.” Compl. ¶ 18. Plaintiff also alleges that
`“agents for President Bush interfered with [her] job at []
`Georgetown Hospital [by] requiring her to work over 80 hours
`during the week of” the confirmation hearings of several Federal
`officials. Compl. ¶ 24.5 Plaintiff further asserts that “[a]n
`official in the George H. W. Bush Administration illegally
`classified [her] as a national security risk in 1990 as a
`political favor to Phillips Petroleum Company and the Harriet
`Miers’ law firm and the Johnson and Whittenburg heirs,” and that
`she was surveilled through the “Home guard surveillance network.”
`Compl. ¶ 9. Plaintiff requests a preliminary and permanent
`injunction, declaratory relief, compensatory damages, and a
`“three judge court decision.” Compl. at 16.
`
`5 The paragraphs and pages of the handwritten complaint are
`not in order. Paragraph 24 appears on pages 9 and 11.
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:08-cv-01624-EGS Document 8 Filed 02/02/10 Page 4 of 6
`
`II. Analysis
`Defendants have moved to dismiss the case for lack of
`subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.6 Federal courts are courts of
`limited jurisdiction and the plaintiff bears the burden of
`establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v.
`Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 377 (1994). While complaints
`filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards
`than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, see
`Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Gray v. Poole, 275
`F.3d 1113, 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2002), “even a pro se plaintiff bears
`the burden of establishing that the Court has subject matter
`
`6 Defendants also moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of
`Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which
`relief can be granted, and the doctrines of collateral estoppel
`and res judicata based on other similar actions that have been
`filed in this Court. The Court notes that plaintiff has filed
`several actions in this Court with overlapping and repetitive
`claims: Newby v. President George Bush, et al., Civil Action No.
`05-1877 (D.D.C.) (“Newby I”), in which Judge Huvelle dismissed
`plaintiff’s claims seeking to enjoin the confirmation hearings of
`Chief Justice John Roberts on grounds of absolute immunity; Newby
`v. George W. Bush, et al., Civil Action No. 06-160 (RCL)
`(D.D.C.), in which Chief Judge Lamberth sua sponte dismissed as
`frivolous plaintiff’s complaint asserting claims that she was
`under surveillance; and Newby v. George W. Bush, et al., 08-983
`(RMC) (D.D.C.) (“Newby III”), where plaintiff moved to
`voluntarily dismiss her claims of conversion of property and
`violations of her civil and privacy rights, then appealed Judge
`Collyer’s Order granting plaintiff’s motion for dismissal.
`Because the Court concludes that it does not have subject matter
`jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims, it need not reach the
`question of whether plaintiff adequately stated a claim under
`Rule 12(b)(6) or whether the doctrines of collateral estoppel and
`res judicata apply.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 1:08-cv-01624-EGS Document 8 Filed 02/02/10 Page 5 of 6
`
`jurisdiction.” Price v. College Park Honda, No. 05-0624, 2006 WL
`1102818, at *6 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2006) (citing Rosenboro v. Kim,
`994 F.2d 13, 17 (D.C. Cir. 1993)). “[T]he federal courts are
`without power to entertain claims that are ‘so attenuated and
`unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.’” Hagans v.
`Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (quoting Newburyport Water
`Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904)). No federal
`question jurisdiction exists “when the complaint is patently
`insubstantial.” Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
`(internal citations omitted); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490
`U.S. 319, 327 n.6 (1989). To be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) on
`this ground the claims must be “flimsier than ‘doubtful or
`questionable’- they must be ‘essentially fictitious.’” Best, 39
`F.3d at 330 (quoting Hagans, 415 U.S. at 536-37). Claims that
`are essentially fictitious include those that allege “bizarre
`conspiracy theories, any fantastic government manipulations of
`their will or mind [or] any sort of supernatural intervention.”
`Id. at 330.
`Having reviewed plaintiff’s complaint, it appears that its
`claims relating to alleged government surveillance and harassment
`are of the sort of “bizarre conspiracy theory” that warrant
`dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). For this reason, the Court
`concludes that the complaint is frivolous and that it does not
`have jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims. Therefore,
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 1:08-cv-01624-EGS Document 8 Filed 02/02/10 Page 6 of 6
`
`defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the claims are
`DISMISSED with prejudice as to all defendants. An appropriate
`Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
`
`Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan
`United States District Judge
`February 2, 2010
`
`
`
`6