Bickford v. Gov't of the United States

• Decision Date: 06 September 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 10–2323 (PLF).
• Citation: 808 F.Supp.2d 175
• Parties: Sandra BICKFORD, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT OF the UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

808 F.Supp.2d 175

Sandra BICKFORD, Plaintiff,

v.GOVERNMENT OF the UNITED STATES, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 10–2323 (PLF).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Sept. 6, 2011.

Sandra Bickford, Bedford, VA, pro se.

Kenneth A. Adebonojo, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

OPINION

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the motion of the government of the United States to dismiss the complaint of pro se plaintiff Sandra Bickford under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Also pending are three motions filed by Ms. Bickford: (1) a motion for an order of emergency protection to enjoin unnamed federal employees from, among other things, engaging in surveillance of Ms. Bickford and her minor child and interfering with this case; (2) a motion to obtain all medical and legal records that pertain to Ms. Bickford and her minor child; and (3) a motion for the appointment of, among others, legal counsel. Upon consideration of the parties' papers, the relevant legal authorities, and the entire record in this case, the Court will grant the government's motion to dismiss, will deny as moot Ms. Bickford's motion for an emergency order of protection, will deny Ms. Bickford's motion to obtain all medical and legal records, and will deny Ms. Bickford's motion for appointment of, among others, legal counsel.¹

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Sandra Bickford, proceeding pro se, has filed suit against the government of the United States. See Compl. at 1. Ms. Bickford alleges that, from 2001 to the present, certain federal and local Virginia officials—acting at the behest of Russell Miller, Ms. Bickford's ex-husband—have conspired and engaged in the systematic torture, harassment, and surveillance of Ms. Bickford and her minor child. See id. at 1–6. Ultimately, the goal of this alleged broad-ranging conspiracy was and is to isolate and remove Ms. Bickford from society; it began with an illegal medical operation performed on Ms. Bickford on June 6, 2001. See id. ¶ 1.

As Ms. Bickford describes it, before June 6, 2001, Mr. Miller “on multiple occasions warn[ed] of his power to cause her harm due to his ‘connections.’ ” Compl. at 3. Such “connections” allegedly included Curtis Richardson—Mr. Miller's first cousin who “was an employee of [the] federal government,” and worked for either the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, or the Secret Service—as well as various local government officials of Tazewell County, Virginia. Id.; see id. ¶ 1.² Mr. Miller eventually sent Ms. Bickford a message stating that “they had a plan for her that was going to blow her mind[.]” Id. at 3.

Ms. Bickford alleges that on June 6, 2001,

individual(s) representing the government of the United States recklessly and maliciously used the power and influence of their position to assist the Virginia Department of Corrections, a Tazewell County Virginia Judge, the Tazewell County Virginia Sheriff's Department, and a medical doctor in the medical implantation of devices [in Ms. Bickford] to be used for surveillance, and to remove [Ms. Bickford] from society and to isolate her in order to cover up her future abuses ... through distortion of normal auditory perception.

Compl. ¶ 1. Ms. Bickford “was sedated ..., never given an opportunity to consent to the medical procedures which took place, and also never told about the alterations done to her physical body.” Id. ¶ 3.

At some point, however, Ms. Bickford “became cognizant of the occurrences of 2001.” Compl. ¶ 6. And beginning in 2007, “representatives of the United States Government have actively used the power of their positions to cover up what was done to [her] through” various means, including: (1) blocking Ms. Bickford from receiving “adequate medical treatment,” id. ¶ 6; (2) blocking Ms. Bickford from receiving “needed legal assistance,” id.; (3) blocking Ms. Bickford “from receiving protection from local authorities when victimized by criminal acts by misrepresenting her as mentally unstable and a substance abuser,” id. ¶ 7; and (4) blocking Ms. Bickford from “accessing all of her medical records and any legal records which may reveal the truth of their activities and be used as evidence against them.” Id. ¶ 8. Ms. Bickford alleges that these unspecified officials “went to great lengths to prove the power of their positions by applying psychological, cognitive, and physical torture techniques.” Id. at 4. Such alleged “torture techniques” include tampering with the medical treatment of Ms. Bickford and her minor child, altering medical records, and engaging in various types of harassment. Id.

On December 29, 2010, Ms. Bickford filed suit in this Court naming only the United States government as a defendant. Although not entirely clear, it appears that she makes claims under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. See Compl. at 5. ³ She requests $10 million in punitive damages, as well as various forms of injunctive relief. See id. at 6.

On January 20, 2011, Ms. Bickford filed a motion requesting “legitimate copies of all medical records, legal records and legal documents which pertain to her and her minor child regardless of their classification.” Records Mot. at 1. Also on January 20, 2011, Ms. Bickford filed a motion requesting that the Court appoint for her (1) legal counsel; (2) a team of “non-biased federal investigators ... to immediately take action to identify past and ongoing behavior and incidents which violate the constitutional rights of [Ms. Bickford] and her minor child”; and (3) “[a] team of qualified humane medical professionals ... needed to identify and remove all distortion products and inanimate objects from the bodies of both [Ms. Bickford] and her child [.]” Resources Mot. at 1. Then, on March 9, 2011, Ms. Bickford requested that the Court enter an order assigning U.S. Marshals to her for protection and directing

ALL federal employees operating with the intention of surveillance, blocking access to needed resources and services including needed medical treatment, interfering with this lawsuit, facilitating ongoing isolation, facilitating ongoing torture, and facilitating ongoing secrecy ... to keep a distance of at least one mile away from [Ms. Bickford] and her minor child.

Protection Mot. at 1 (emphasis in original).

In response, on April 4, 2011, the government filed a motion to dismiss Ms. Bickford's complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See MTD at 1. The Court then issued an Order informing Ms. Bickford that any failure to respond to the government's motion carries with it the risk that her complaint will be dismissed and ordering Ms. Bickford to respond to the government's motion by July 20, 2011. See Order at 1–2, June 20, 2011. In accordance with that Order, Ms. Bickford filed her response on July 19, 2011. The government has filed its reply, and this matter now is ripe for decision.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Rule 12(b)(1)

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure presents a threshold challenge to the Court's jurisdiction. Curran v. Holder, 626 F.Supp.2d 30, 32 (D.D.C.2009). The Court therefore is “obligated to determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction in the first instance [.]” Agrocomplect, AD v. Republic of Iraq, 524 F.Supp.2d 16, 21 (D.D.C.2007). “Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be forfeited or waived and should be considered when fairly in doubt.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1945, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Indeed, “[f]ederal courts have a special obligation to determine whether they have subject matter jurisdiction, even when the parties have not raised any jurisdictional questions themselves.” Fay v. Perles, 484 F.Supp.2d 6, 9 (D.D.C.2007).

Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Curran v. Holder, 626 F.Supp.2d at 32–33. Although a pro se complaint is held to a less stringent standard than other complaints, id. at 33, “even a pro se plaintiff ... bears the burden of establishing that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.” Price v. College Park Honda, Civil Action No. 050624, 2006 WL 1102818, at *6 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2006) (citing Rosenboro v. Kim, 994 F.2d 13, 17 (D.C.Cir.1993); District of Columbia Ret. Bd. v. United States, 657 F.Supp. 428, 431 (D.D.C.1987)). In deciding whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, the Court may consider the complaint alone or “may consider materials beyond the pleadings[.]” Price v. College Park Honda, 2006 WL 1102818, at *6 (citing Herbert v. National Academy of Sciences, 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C.Cir.1992)).

It is established that federal courts “ ‘are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.’ ” Curran v. Holder, 626 F.Supp.2d at 33 (quoting Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974)); see also Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C.Cir.2009); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C.Cir.1994). “Thus, such claims must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)[.]” Riles v. Geithner, 693 F.Supp.2d 1, 3 (D.D.C.2009); see Curran v. Holder, 626 F.Supp.2d at 33. To be dismissed on this ground, the claims in question must “be flimsier than ‘doubtful or questionable’—they must be ‘essentially fictitious.’ ” Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d at 330 (quoting Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. at 536–37, 94 S.Ct. 1372). Claims that are “essentially fictitious” include those that allege “ ‘bizarre conspiracy theories, ... fantastic government manipulations of [the] will or mind, [or] any sort of supernatural intervention.’ ” Riles v. Geithner, 693 F.Supp.2d at 3 (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d at 330) (alteration in original).

B. Rule 12(b)(6)

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure...