The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RENEE DEAL, ) CASE NO.: 1:24-cv-976
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN
)
v. )
) MEMORANDUM OPINION
FRANK G. JACKSON, et al., ) AND ORDER
)
Defendants. )
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Renee Deal’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint. (Doc. No. 1,
PageID #1.)1 For the reasons explained below, the Complaint is DISMISSED.
I. Factual Allegations
Plaintiff’s Complaint names as defendants former Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson
(“Jackson”), Plaintiff’s uncle Richard White (“White”), and the “U.S. Surveillance Program.” In
general, while Plaintiff’s allegations span decades and a host of alleged activity, the thrust of
Plaintiff’s allegations are that she has been stalked by Jackson and White.
Plaintiff alleges that in the early 1990s, Jackson “laid in wait, at the bus stop” as she was
on her way to work in the morning. (Id.) She contends he stated to her, “Ohhhhh, you made it
huh?” (Id.) She states that she made eye contact with him, and he screamed and ran away from
her. (Id. at 2.) She indicates that her brother knows Jackson, and Jackson told him that
Plaintiff’s eyes were “glowing like fire.” (Id.) She contends that when she moved in early 1999,
1 For ease and consistency, record citations are to the electronically stamped CM/ECF document
and PageID# rather than any internal pagination.
Jackson arranged for men who had the ability to see inside her home to sit in front of her house.
(Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that White placed wiretaps and “invasions” on her home in January 2002.
(Id.) She indicates that in 2000 and 2001, she was employed as a secretary for Kappa House, a
high-rise apartment building offering affordable senior citizen housing. (Id.) In 2001, she filed
charges of sexual harassment against her boss with the Equal Employment Opportunities
Commission (“EEOC”) and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (“OCRC”). (Id. at 3–4.) She
claims that the “Kappa Brothers Organization” protected her boss during a mediation. (Id.) She
then equates the Kappa House with the Kappa Alpha Psi fraternity, and claims that her uncle
Richard White is “obviously a member of the organization.” (Id. at 3.) She alleges that after she
filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against her boss, White “placed invasions upon my home.” (Id.
at 4.)
Plaintiff indicates that at some point in 2002, she was watching television in her living
room when her scheduled programing was going into a commercial break. (Id.) She states she
saw “a black man leaning against a table or desk with his arms folded and staring at [her].” (Id.)
She states the man then leaped up, startled, and ran out of view. (Id.) She states that “although I
had not seen him in decades, I immediately recognized him as [U]ncle Ricky.” (Id.) On another
occasion, she saw Jackson watching her through her television. (Id. at 11.)
Plaintiff claims that she was speaking with a female relative over the telephone when the
Holy Spirit spoke through her. (Id. at 4.) She contends that “[g]overnments, at all levels, as well
as religious leaders, Jackson, White and others can bear witness to this fact because they all
heard it.” (Id.) She is sure that thousands of people taped it. (Id.)
Plaintiff states that she sought counseling from a psychologist at Cleveland Metro Health
Hospital. (Id. at 5.) She states that her psychologist indicated that “they” wanted her to try
medication. (Id.) She refused the medication believing she had foiled a plot by her uncle to
poison her. (Id.) She states that her uncle worked within the pharmaceutical industry. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that in 2004, the singer R. Kelly sent her a message through his song
titled “the Party Song.” (Id. at 5–6.) Specifically, the song lyrics read, “Chilling at the house on
the hill, you’ve got to say my, my, my like Johnny Gill.” (Id. at 6.) The song then talks about a
roof on fire. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that her house at that time appeared to sit on an upward slope.
(Id.) That same house burned down in April 2004 because of arson. (Id.) She alleges that
Jackson and White worked together to keep the “invasions and solicitations.” (Id.)
Plaintiff claims one morning she was “minding a private moment” when “air raid” sirens
sounded. (Id.) She believes that was done to humiliate her. (Id.)
Plaintiff claims a former male coworker visited her at her home and remained for a few
hours. (Id. at 7.) She learned several months later that he had died. (Id.) She has no idea what
caused his “demise,” but she suspects he was poisoned by Jackson and/or White to punish him
for visiting her. (Id. at 7–8.)
Plaintiff claims that her granddaughter was born with a “breathing defect” in January
2012. (Id. at 8.) Due to her delicate condition, she could not come home and was being cared
for by the Berea Aristocrat Home for disabled children. (Id.) Plaintiff claims she regularly saw
lights flicker when she visited her granddaughter. (Id. at 9.) Her granddaughter died when her
breathing apparatus became dislodged. (Id.) She contends Jackson ordered someone to break
into the hospital and murder the child. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that White made a comment to his boss at White’s mother’s funeral in
2017. (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff heard the words, “that’s the one who . . .” and then heard his boss say,
“you better watch her” to which White replied “I am.” (Id.) She indicates that she wrote to
White in the days following the funeral accusing him of invading her privacy. (Id.) She received
a “cease and desist” letter from his attorney. (Id.)
Plaintiff indicates that she filed a police report with Detective Mackey accusing Jackson
of stalking her through her television and electrical outlets. (Id. at 11, 14.) She attempted to
obtain a restraining order against Jackson, but Detective Mackey and Jackson’s attorney called
her testimony delusional. (Id. at 14.) She claims the court denied her request. (Id.)
Finally, Plaintiff contends that she is not certain “at what point the U.S. Surveillance
Program took over the invasions and solicitations against [her].” (Id. at 15.) She claims that the
“affordable internet program” was “backed by the U.S. Surveillance, whereby millions of
citizens were given the right to also invade [her] privacy, nonstop, around the clock for several
years until the program had run its course effective April 30, 2024.” (Id.)
II. Analysis
A. Legal Standard
Courts liberally construe a pro se Plaintiff’s pleadings and filings. Boswell v. Mayer, 169
F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir. 1999). This means that pro se Complaints are “held to less stringent
standards than those prepared by attorneys.” Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir.
2004) (citations omitted). Liberal construction, however, does not “abrogate basic pleading
essentials.” Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). In reviewing a complaint, the
Court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean
Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998).
A court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction if it appears that the
allegations are “totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no
longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). “A
complaint ‘is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in fact or in law.’” Abner v. SBC
(Ameritech), 86 F. App’x 958 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325,
327–28 (1989)). A complaint “lacks an arguable or rational basis in fact if it describes fantastic
or delusional scenarios.” Id. Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under rule 12(b)(1)
should be exercised with caution and used “only the rarest of circumstances where . . . the
complaint is deemed totally implausible.” Id. When a complaint is “totally implausible” in this
way, federal jurisdiction is divested. Apple, 183 F.3d at 479.
B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s allegations describe events
that are totally implausible and frivolous. Id. at 479. While Plaintiff may sincerely believe these
events occurred exactly the way she described them, the Court cannot accept as true allegations
that are totally implausible and frivolous. The Sixth Circuit has instructed district courts that
“most complaints will not be so clearly insufficient as to warrant dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1),
but instead should be handled under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if the
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Id. at 480. But where, as
here, a “district court is faced with a complaint that appears to be frivolous or unsubstantial in
nature, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) as opposed to Rule 12(b)(6)) is appropriate.” Id.
Other courts have dismissed cases when presented with similar factual allegations. See
e.g., Tucker v. FBI Head Quarters, 19-cv-13626, 2020 WL 4006760, at * (E.D. Mich. Feb. 26,
2020) (“The crux of the complaint, that the ‘Surveillance Operatives’ are illegally using
electronic warfare and neural weapons against him and his family, as well as other plots and
conspiracies involving the ‘deep state,’ lacks an arguable basis in rational fact”); Knight v.
Foxworth, No. 07-cv-70, 2007 WL 2427769, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2007) (“In this case, it is
apparent that Knight’s claims of monitoring by unseen enemies via computer, through the
plumbing and air vent in his cell, are irrational and wholly incredible.”); Lawrence v. Priest, No.
23-cv-365, 2023 WL 3871922, at * (W.D. Mich. Apr. 17, 2023) (dismissing complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because allegations were “totally implausible”). As such, the Court
finds that allegations in the pleading are not sufficient to establish a basis for federal
jurisdiction.’
Ill. Conclusion
This action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court certifies,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good
faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 27, 2024 of
L3H Ub BRENNAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
? Defendant Jackson filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) arguing that the
allegations are implausible, the claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that Jackson is
entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. 7-1.) The Court does not reach these arguments because
the Court dismisses the complaint sua sponte under Rule 12(b)(1).