Neha Gupta v. Hunter Biden

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: October 16, 2023
• Docket: 5:23-cv-02032
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NEHA GUPTA, Case No. 5:23-cv-02032-FMO (SHK)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 13 v. 14 HUNTER BIDEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On September 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) 19 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, who are public figures, have violated Plaintiff’s 20 privacy rights for several years by stalking and surveilling her. For example, 21 Defendants allegedly have placed cameras throughout Plaintiff’s apartment, 22 harassed her on thousands of occasions, arranged for Uber drivers to harass her, 23 followed her, tampered with her food, left objects in her apartment, left cockroaches 24 on her bed and in her kitchen, tried to have her deported, bugged her phone and 25 computer, and tried to destroy her reputation on social media. (ECF No. 1 at 2-5.) 26 Plaintiff requests 50 million dollars in damages. (Id. at 5.) 27 “Dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because of the inadequacy 28 of the federal claim is proper only when the claim is so insubstantial, implausible, 1 foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit 2 as not to involve a federal controversy.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t., 3 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (quotation omitted). “Over the years this Court has 4 repeatedly held that the federal courts are without power to entertain claims 5 otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to 6 be absolutely devoid of merit, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, plainly 7 unsubstantial, or no longer open to discussion.” Hagans v. Levine, 415 U.S. 528, 8 536 (1974) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). When a claim is 9 insubstantial, it is “so patently without merit that the claim requires no meaningful 10 consideration.” Tijerino v. Stetson Desert Project, LLC, 934 F.3d 968, 975 (9th 11 Cir. 2019). 12 Here, the Complaint requires no meaningful consideration because it is 13 wholly insubstantial and obviously frivolous. Allegations of a similarly fantastic 14 nature have been held not to present a substantial federal question, thereby 15 depriving a federal court of jurisdiction to consider them. See Atakapa Indian de 16 Creole Nation v. Louisiana, 943 F.3d 1004, 1007 (5th Cir. 2019) (holding that a 17 district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a suit that was brought under “the 1795 18 Spanish Treaty with the Catholic Majesty of Spain and the 1800 French Treaty with 19 the former Christian Majesty of France,” named several world leaders as 20 defendants, and alleged a monopoly of “intergalactic foreign trade”); Tooley v. 21 Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009-10 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (holding that a district court 22 lacked jurisdiction to consider a plaintiff’s allegations of “a massive surveillance 23 operation against him” after his telephone conversation with an airline 24 representative, and collecting similar cases of “patent insubstantiality”); Grady v. 25 United States Government, 702 F. App’x 929, 930 (11th Cir. 2017) (“[The] 26 allegations—that the government employed surveillance specialists to harass him 27 while he was in the library and at theaters; performed sting operations at local bars; 28 used electromagnetic surveillance, cameras, and rooftop devices to monitor him; 1 and had a nurse act as a covert operative to implant a microchip in his ear—are so 2 attenuated and unsubstantial as to be devoid of merit. . . . They were properly 3 dismissed [for lack of jurisdiction].” Based on these persuasive authorities, the 4 Complaint is dismissed for lack of a substantial federal question. 5 Finally, amendment of the Complaint is not warranted. The Complaint “does 6 not suggest to [the Court] any respect in which [it] could be amended to state a 7 substantial federal question,” and the Court is “unable to imagine any.” Smith v. 8 State of Cal., 336 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1964); see also Atakapa Indian de Creole 9 Nation v. Edwards, 838 F. App’x 124, 124-25 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (holding 10 that a complaint lacking any “coherent argument” was properly dismissed for lack 11 of jurisdiction as frivolous and without leave to amend, because “futility of any 12 amendment here was readily apparent and justified by the record”). Because 13 amendment would be futile, the Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend. 14 15 ORDER 16 The action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 17 18 DATED: October 16, 2023 19 20 _____________/s/____________________ FERNANDO M. OLGUIN 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28