Opinion
CIVIL 21-cv-868-JL
05-23-2022
Maria Peter, et al. v. Susan Diane Wojcicki, et al.
Maria Peter, pro se. Julika Berger, pro se.
Maria Peter, pro se.
Julika Berger, pro se.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Andrea K. Johnstone United States Magistrate Judge
A form complaint was filed by Maria Peter and Julika Berger titled “Complaint for a Civil Case Alleging Negligence,” (document no. 1), followed by a nearly identical amended complaint (document no. 5). Maria Peter moved to proceed without prepayment of filing fees (document no. 6). The complaints are here for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Two minors are also listed as plaintiffs.
Standard of Review
This court conducts a preliminary review of complaints filed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Claims may be dismissed sua sponte, if, among other things, the court lacks jurisdiction, a defendant is immune from the relief sought, or the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See id. In considering whether the complaint states a claim, the court determines if, stripped of legal conclusions and with all reasonable inferences construed in plaintiff's favor, the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief” upon which relief can be granted. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). In undertaking this review, the court is mindful that pro se complaints must be construed liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
Discussion
Maria Peter and Julika Berger, purportedly also acting on behalf of their minor children, reside in Austria and Germany, respectively. They bring claims against Susan Diane Wojcicki as “CEO online video platform YT,” William Gates, as president of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Stephane Bancel as “CEO Mode-RNA Therapeutics,” and Albert Bourla as “CEO Pfizer Inc.” They allege that they were injured in 2021 “by mental disease Akva-A” because the defendants “failed to keep the risk of synthetic bioweapon-attacks at the 10%-low, but rose it to a 70%-high,” which appears to be related to the coronavirus world pandemic. Doc. 5, at 4. Each plaintiff claims $25,000 in compensatory damages, and together they claim $16 trillion in punitive damages.
The plaintiffs have filed substantially the same complaint in many districts. See, e.g., Peter v. Wojcicki, 2022 WL 1082413 (D. Utah Apr. 11, 2022); Peter v. Wojcicki, 2022 WL 1170426 (N.D. Ohio Apr.20, 2022); Peter v. Wojcicki, 2022 WL 798790 (D.S.C. Mar. 16, 2022); Peter v. Wojcicki, 2022 WL 623145 (D. Id. Mar. 3, 2022); Peter v. Wojcicki, 2022 WL 580507 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2022); Peter v. Wojcicki, 2021 WL 5998528 (D.R.I. Dec. 20, 2021); Peter v. Wojcicki, 2021 WL 5808621 (D. Ha. Dec. 7, 2021). In each case, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to state an actionable claim and dismissed the case. Courts also found that the claims were incoherent, nonsensical, and frivolous, that the claims were not related to the districts where the complaints were filed, and that the plaintiffs could not bring claims on behalf of their minor children. For the reasons stated in the cited cases, the district court should also find in this case that the plaintiffs have not stated an actionable claim and should dismiss the case.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district court should dismiss the complaints (documents 1 and 5) and deny the motion for in forma pauperis status (document no. 6) as moot.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed.R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) . The fourteen-day period may be extended upon motion. Only those issues raised in the objection to this Report and Recommendation are subject to review in the district court. See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Natl Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). Any issues not preserved by such objection(s) are precluded on appeal. See id. Failure to file any objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the district court's order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).