United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Williams United States District Judge
matter is before the Court for on a motion to dismiss (Doc.
4) brought by defendants State of Iowa and Iowa Department of
Human Services. Plaintiff Skylar Crosser filed several
supplements, which the Court charitably construes as a
resistance. See Doc.8-16. Oral argument is not
necessary. See L.R. 7(c).
24, 2019, plaintiff filed a document which the Clerk of
Court's Office characterized as a pro se 42 U.S.C. §
1983 complaint. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff paid the $400 filing
In his filing, plaintiff states:
I think I may hold a bad secret with a few others. I have a
female individual from the rural Union, Iowa area I believe
is being targeted by computers and has led to false official
statements and claims to the State of Iowa Departments
resulting in defamation of individual's character,
coercion, falsifying DNA and conspiracy; accompanied by
racketeering. This individual, Lauren Schwark 29 yoa, claims
to have a kid with Jim Bonschmidt, of Zearing, IA area. This
I believe is not the truth, and I believe the kid is [B.H.]
from Alden, IA area. I am concerned for Lauren's safety
as she threatens to kill herself and gets programmed to be
depressed and has become a fiduciary because of this dark
secret. If I do not hear a response, I will file a Federal
lawsuit against the DNA company in the next 2-3 weeks. This
is around the 8th lawsuit complaint in Cedar Rapids Federal
Court with similar allegations of collusion and torture.
Lauren has complained to me of satellites entering her body
also with alternating currents; completely unacceptable.
(Doc. 1). Plaintiff goes on to request damages for, what he
characterizes as, “computer crimes.” The
remainder of plaintiff's initial filing is a timeline,
describing the effects that “microwaves” have had
on Eighth Circuit precedent, the Court did not conduct an
initial review/prescreening of plaintiff's complaint.
See Hake v. Clarke, 91 F.3d 1129, 1132 (8th Cir.
1996) (“We find no support for the district court to
have conducted a frivolousness review of non-IFP pro se
complaints, or to have conducted an initial review of all pro
se complaints under Rule 12(b)(6) before service of process
and responsive pleadings”). In Phelps v.
Lynch, 613 Fed. App'x 552, 553 (8th Cir. 2015)
(unpublished), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals explained:
Phelps was not a prisoner, as required for 28 U.S.C. §
1915A to apply, see Kolocotronis v. Morgan, 247 F.3d
726, 728 (8th Cir. 2001), and he had not sought leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, as required for 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) to apply. In addition, the claims were not
subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We further conclude that
dismissal under Rule 41(b) was unwarranted, because the
district court lacked authority to conduct the underlying
appears plaintiff attempted to personally serve the State of
Iowa (see Doc. 6) and on August 1, 2019, an attorney
entered an appearance on behalf of defendants State of Iowa
and Iowa Department of Human Services. To the extent it was
necessary, the state defendants waived service (Doc. 5) and
filed a motion to dismiss. In their motion to dismiss, the
state defendants argue:
Nothing in Document 1 resembles a Complaint in the slightest
way, or complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. .
.. Document 1 . . . does not describe any claim for relief. .
.. There is no caption and no way to identify from Document 1
who the parties are. . .. There is really no stretch of the
imagination where Document 1 could even be considered a
“complaint” within the meaning of the federal
(Doc. 4-1 at 1-5).
the defendants filed their motion to dismiss, plaintiff has
filed several supplements, all of which are incomprehensible.
Those supplements contain additional timelines about alleged
microwave damage, photo copies of receipts, photo copies of
lottery tickets, pictures of knives, inappropriate words and
phrases, allegations about money laundering, and contain
numerous lists of nonsensical numbers. (Doc. 8-16).