Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Albanese v. Federal Bureau of Investigations

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 29, 2017

GRACE ALBANESE, Plaintiff,
v.
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant. GRACE ALBANESE, Plaintiff,
v.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF NOS. 3, 4)

          Cam Ferenbach United States Magistrate Judge.

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Grace Albanese's Responses to the Court's Orders to Show Cause in the above captioned actions. For the reasons stated below, the Court recommends that Albanese be deemed a vexatious litigant.

         I. Background

         A. A Brief History of Albanese's Actions

         Since March 2016, Albanese has filed 31 federal cases in the district of Nevada, 29 of which are currently ongoing, and 8 of which are assigned to this Magistrate Judge.[1]In 25 of Albanese's cases, she has sued either the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“Metro”) or The Federal Bureau of Investigation (the “FBI”).[2]Many of Albanese's actions assert the same set of allegations: unknown persons stalk or spy on Albanese in her room and when she travels about, sometimes using listening devices or even hacking into her phone, but federal and state law enforcement ignore her pleas for help and have not captured the wrongdoers. Albanese asserts similar legal claims in all her cases, e.g., violations of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by denying her due process and equal protection; public corruption; and obstruction of justice. The claims and allegations in many of Albanese's actions are repetitive and duplicative of each other.

         On June 15, 2017, and June 19, 2017, the Court entered an order to show cause in case numbers 2:17-cv-01599-JAD-VCF and 2:17-cv-01600-JAD-VCF. In the orders, the Court granted Albanese's requests to proceed in forma pauperis under § 1915(a). The Court reviewed the complaints and ordered Albanese “to show cause in writing … why she should not be declared a vexatious litigant.” The orders noted that failure to file a timely response may result in a report and recommendation “to the district judge that [Albanese] be declared a vexatious litigant.” For both cases, Albanese timely filed identical responses to the Court's orders to show cause on June 21, 2017. In Albanese's responses, she begins by listing various “adjectives, ” including “fanciful factual allegation, without merit, frivolous, harassing, inarguable legal conclusions, duplicative redundant, irrational, wholly incredible.” See, e.g., Albanese v. Federal Bureau of Investigations, case no. 2:17-cv-01599-JAD-VCF, ECF No. 4 at 2 (June 21, 2012). Albanese acknowledges that she is “guilty of some but not all those adjectives.” Id. But Albanese disagrees with her claims and allegations being labeled “without merit, frivolous, irrational, and wholly incredible” and argues that “[j]ust because they (my case log) sound so irrationally incredible that they are frivolously without merit does not preclude my cases from the truth.” Id. After all, “who says the truth can't be crazy and crazy can't be the truth.” Id. Albanese further states:

And getting to the truth is more important to me than labels. I can't explain my situation … without showing the truth in real time by whoever is perpetrating it. No mention about collusion, duty to correct fanciful factual allegations by law enforcement that whatever I allege is untrue. If I could just continue returning to the Court to submit letters I won't submit anymore duplicative, redundant cases … Your Honor mentions so poi[g]nantly in his ruling that my ‘filings are legion.' Once again, I need to explain all the suspicious activity taking place both in and out of my apartment. The redundancy is due to my poor relationship with 311 / 911. So I argue that Your Honor allow me to continue filing my letters if I stop law suit activations when am so hopelessly mad as hell. The slowness by the wheels-of-justice just add to all the harassment I'm going thru on a daily basis.

Id. at 3. (emphasis added in bold).

         B. Dismissal of Claims

         a. Legal Standards

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a district court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that … the action … is (1) “frivolous or malicious”; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. The term “frivolous” when applied to a complaint embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion but also the fanciful factual allegation. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). While an in forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed simply because the court finds the plaintiff's allegations unlikely, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

         Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleading drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1106 (citation omitted). Pro se litigants, however, “should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record, ” rather, they must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. See Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995).

         b. Screening Albanese's Complaints

         Before the Court are two of Albanese's complaints. First, in Albanese v. Federal Bureau of Investigations, case no. 2:17-cv-01599-JAD-VCF (June 8, 2017), Albanese brings suit against the FBI for (1) allegedly violating her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by denying Albanese equal protection; (2) public corruption; and (3) obstruction of justice.[3]See Albanese v. Federal Bureau of Investigations, case no. 2:17-cv-01599-JAD-VCF, ECF No. 1-1 (June 8, 2017). The one-page complaint seeks damages of $500, 000 and states in its entirety the following:

OBSTRUCTION of Justice, denying me equal protection in allowing me to be stalked by the same male on a daily basis. Public Corruption by violating the Duty to correct policy under civility code of conduct in the F.B.I.

Id.

         Second, in Albanese v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, case no. 2:17-cv-01600-JAD-VCF (June 8, 2017), Albanese brings suit against Metro for (1) allegedly violating her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by denying Albanese equal protection “for allowing the same male to stalk … [her] on a daily basis”; (2) public corruption; and (3) obstruction of justice.[4]See Albanese v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, case no. 2:17-cv-01600-JAD-VCF, ECF No. 1-1 at 1 (June 8, 2017). The complaint states in its entirety the following:

The Las Vegas Police Department on June 8, 2017 allowed a person of interest to continue stalking me. Desert Inn / Paradise 10:43 am he is so confident he is not going to be arrested for stalking he even waits for me to catch up with him then he departs the area as I am calling the police. The police who instead of catching up with the repeat stalker (10:34 am [unintelligible word] / Desert Inn); 10:30 am Cambridge / Desert Inn; the police are driving pass me with sirens blarring 11:27 am North on Paradise @ Convention Center as the stalker gets away to stalk me on my return trip home. Every day when I call for help the police never arrive to help.

Id. at 2.

         The claims and factual allegations raised in Albanese's complaints against the FBI and Metro are duplicative of those raised in other actions brought by Albanese. To illustrate, the Court has included the following examples.

         i. The Federal Bureau of Investigation

         In Albanese v. Federal Bureau of Investigations, Albanese sued the FBI for violation of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denying her due process and equal protection, and obstruction of justice. See Albanese v. Federal Bureau of Investigations, Case No. 2:17-cv-01641-JAD-GWF, ECF no. 1-1 at 1 (June 13, 2017). The complaint in that case states in its entirety the following:

The F.B.I. are aware that 1107 E. Desert Inn Apts 3 and 9 are observing me in my bedroom and on June 13 Desert Parkway Behavioral Hospital CNA's were waiting for me while seeing my image live streamed on their phones. June 12 1089 E. Desert Inn Apts 7 was live streamed my image when he stalked me. The F.B.I. is acting in collusion with Apts 3 and 9 who are com[m]itting criminal misconduct.

Id. at 2.

         In Albanese v. Federal Bureau of Investigations, Albanese sued the FBI for violation of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denying her due process and equal protection, and obstruction of justice. See Albanese v. Federal Bureau of Investigations, Case No. 2:17-cv-01635-JAD-CWH, ECF no. 1-1 (June 12, 2017). The complaint in that case states the following:

The F.B.I. refuse to help me when they know I'm being followed by the same man who is being supported and funded by people who want me to move. The F.B.I. refuse to help me when I am being stalked and they know by whom. The F.B.I. refuses to pull the plug on 1107 E. Desert Inn Apts 3 and 9 observation of me in my room. The F.B.I. know I'm being stalked and they won't help me. This is obstruction of justice, denying me due process and equal protection.

Id.

         In Albanese v. Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Albanese sued the FBI for violation of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by denying her equal protection, and obstruction of justice. See Albanesev. Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Case No. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.