Ramirez v. Swift
- Charles Breyer
- 3:24-cv-05974
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ramirez v. Swift, Judge Breyer dismissed Ramirez’s complaint for failure to state a claim and did not allow an amended complaint.
The order affects Elias Torres Ramirez by dismissing his complaint and declining to allow an amended complaint. It also ends the claims asserted against Taylor Alison Swift and the other defendants in this action.
What happened
In Ramirez v. Swift, Elias Torres Ramirez alleged that he was married to Taylor Alison Swift and that Swift and others violated their “Sacred Relationship.” He sought reunification with Swift, the death of certain individuals, and control of Swift’s assets.
Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim recommended dismissing the complaint because it did not state a legally valid claim under the federal rule governing failure to state a claim. Ramirez did not object to that recommendation.
Judge Charles R. Breyer adopted the recommendation in full and dismissed the complaint. Although this was Ramirez’s first complaint in this case, the court noted that several prior related cases had been dismissed and did not allow him to amend the complaint.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. Swift · No. 3:24-cv-05974
- Charles Breyer
- Dec. 30, 2024
Background
Elias Torres Ramirez alleged that he was married to Taylor Alison Swift. He claimed that Swift and other individuals, including Travis Kelce, had violated his and Swift’s “Sacred Relationship.” Ramirez sought “immediate reunification” with Swift, requested that “certain [individuals] be put to death,” and sought control of Swift’s assets.
Recommendation and ruling
Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim recommended dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally valid claim. Ramirez did not object. Judge Charles R. Breyer reviewed the complaint and adopted Judge Kim’s report and recommendation in its entirety.
Leave to amend and disposition
The court noted that Ramirez had filed several nearly identical prior related cases against Swift and that those cases had been dismissed. Although this was Ramirez’s first complaint in the present action, the court did not grant leave to amend. The order therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim; it did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.