Richards v. Duke University
2007 WL 942070, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22864, 480 F.Supp.2d 222 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims that are "wholly insubstantial or frivolous," which includes "bizarre conspiracy theories," and may dismiss such claims under Rule 12(b)(1). Additionally, a plaintiff must allege specific facts, not conclusory statements, to establish personal jurisdiction and to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or face dismissal under Rule 12(b)(2) or 12(b)(6), respectively, or for being time-barred.
Facts:
- Suzette Richards enrolled at Duke University Law School in the fall of 1997.
- While at Duke, Dean Sockwell allegedly lied to Richards about how to take her law school exams, resulting in lower grades, and a professor falsely indicated Richards was not a United States citizen.
- Richards alleges Duke engaged in illegal surveillance of her, extending to her home and car and resulting in exposure of her private medical information, because officials at Duke feared she would expose their discriminatory practices.
- Richards transferred to Georgetown University Law Center and enrolled in the fall of 1998, alleging Duke and Georgetown colluded and conspired to maintain surveillance of her.
- While at Georgetown, Richards claims she was called on to speak excessively in class, professors entered her apartment and moved her books, an article she wrote was altered to include homosexual civil rights issues, and her Civil Rights professor added a day on homosexual civil rights to his syllabus for the first time.
- Richards graduated from Georgetown University Law Center in May of 2000.
- Richards alleges Microsoft joined the conspiracy to continue surveillance of her and gather information because William H. Gates, III, became physically attracted to her in September 1999, and Microsoft defendants feared Gates would leave his wife for Richards.
- Richards further alleges Microsoft stole her ideas about generating revenue through wireless email, the effect of wireless technology on markets, and changing the name of Web TV to MSN TV, ideas she had only written or spoken privately; Microsoft also allegedly included images and phrases on its website directed at her to harass her, including a picture of a pregnant African-American woman implying she was pregnant with Gates’ child. The United States government was also allegedly conspiring with other defendants and facilitating the surveillance.
Procedural Posture:
- Suzette Richards submitted a complaint on May 8, 2003, in the United States District Court for the District of the United States Virgin Islands, St. Croix Division.
- Richards filed an amended complaint on June 5, 2003.
- The case was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 28, 2006.
- The Duke University defendants (Duke University, Duke University Law School, Duke University Board of Trustees, and Nannerl Keohane) filed motions to dismiss.
- The Georgetown University defendants (Georgetown University and Georgetown University Law Center) filed motions to dismiss.
- The Government defendants (Alberto Gonzales, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, and John and Jane Does 1-10) filed a motion to dismiss.
- The Microsoft defendants (Microsoft Corporation, William H. Gates, III, Steven A. Ballmer, Melinda F. Gates, and Microsoft employees A-J) filed motions to dismiss.
- Richards filed a motion to strike exhibits filed by the Georgetown University defendants.
- Richards filed a motion for leave to take jurisdictional discovery.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal district court have subject matter jurisdiction over a plaintiff's claims when those claims are based on fantastic and delusional allegations of a widespread conspiracy, and can claims alleging various torts and statutory violations be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, or as time-barred if they lack factual specificity and are implausible?
Opinions:
Majority - Lamberth, District Judge
Yes, a federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims when those claims are based on fantastic and delusional allegations of a widespread conspiracy, and claims alleging various torts and statutory violations can be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, or as time-barred if they lack factual specificity and are implausible. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss on multiple grounds. First, it found a lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) over the Duke and individual Microsoft defendants because Richards failed to allege specific facts connecting them to the District of Columbia. General jurisdiction was absent, and specific jurisdiction under D.C. Code § 13-423(a)(4) was not established. The 'government contacts' exception applied to Duke's lobbying activities, and the 'conspiracy jurisdiction doctrine' was inapplicable due to Richards' failure to make a prima facie showing of a conspiracy with an overt act in the forum. Consequently, her motion for jurisdictional discovery was denied as a 'fishing expedition.' Second, the court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) because Richards' claims were 'wholly insubstantial or frivolous.' Citing precedents such as Best v. Kelly, Carone-Ferdinand v. Central Intelligence Agency, and O’Connor v. United States, the court characterized her allegations of a vast conspiracy involving universities, Microsoft, and the government as 'bizarre conspiracy theories,' 'essentially fictitious,' 'fantastic and incredulous,' and 'delusional.' The court emphasized that Richards, as an attorney, was presumed to have knowledge of the legal system and was not entitled to the same liberal standards afforded to non-attorney pro se litigants. Her attempts to string together discrete, and in some instances benign, acts to form a conspiracy were deemed speculative and unspecific. Third, many of Richards' claims were dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim or under the relevant statutes of limitations. Her fraud claims (Count 1) were time-barred and lacked specificity under Rule 9(b). Racial and sexual discrimination claims (Counts 2 & 3) were time-barred, with the 'continuing tort' doctrine being inapplicable. Constitutional violations (Count 4) under the Eighth and Thirteenth Amendments were dismissed as inapplicable, and Bivens liability was not extended to private entities like Microsoft, Duke, and Georgetown; claims against the government were vague. The wiretapping claim (Count 5) and § 1986 claim (Count 8) were time-barred and lacked specificity. Claims under §§ 1981 and 1985 (Counts 6 & 7) failed because defendants were not state actors, no contractual impairment was shown, and no specific conspiracy was alleged. Intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count 9), civil conspiracy (Count 10), invasion of privacy (Count 11), interference with prospective advantage (Count 12), and theft of intellectual property (Count 13) claims were all dismissed for failure to meet legal elements or for being time-barred. The claim for punitive damages (Count 14) was dismissed as all underlying claims failed. Richards' motion to strike exhibits was denied as moot, and her motion for jurisdictional discovery was denied due to the lack of specificity in her conspiracy allegations. The dismissal was with prejudice, as further amendment would be futile.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the principle that federal courts will dismiss claims under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when they are based on "bizarre conspiracy theories" or are otherwise "wholly insubstantial or frivolous." It clarifies that a pro se litigant who is an attorney may not receive the same liberal pleading standards as a non-attorney pro se litigant, expecting greater factual specificity and legal understanding. The ruling also underscores the strict application of statutes of limitations and the limited scope of constitutional and federal civil rights claims, particularly against private actors, preventing plaintiffs from advancing unsubstantiated, fantastic allegations in federal court.
