Feng v. Tripp

Background

Yvonne Ya-Wen Feng filed an amended complaint against Robert K. Tripp, appearing in his official capacity, and a defendant identified as “Doe.” Feng alleged that she had invented and patented a non-invasive medical therapy using magnetic devices. She further alleged that pharmaceutical companies, working with FBI personnel and others, were trying to stop her from practicing and patenting the invention. Her allegations included claims of attacks, poisoning, radiation exposure, stalking, interference with patent filings, interference with immigration-law assistance, and falsified medical records.

Feng asserted claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, several federal civil-rights statutes, defamation law, and the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. She also filed motions for a preliminary injunction and for written judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act concerning immigrant visa denials.

Jurisdictional ruling

Tripp moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The court applied the substantiality doctrine. Under that doctrine, federal courts lack power to hear claims that are so implausible, frivolous, or lacking in merit that they do not present a genuine federal controversy.

The court held that Feng’s allegations of a conspiracy involving pharmaceutical companies and “FBI mobs,” including alleged attacks with radiation and poisons and a staged scooter accident, were too insubstantial to create federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Because the court found that it lacked jurisdiction, it did not consider Tripp’s alternative arguments about the merits of Feng’s claims.

The court also determined that amendment would be futile and therefore did not grant leave to amend. It stated that, after dismissing the claims for lack of jurisdiction under the substantiality doctrine, it had no power to make rulings about the merits.

Other motions and disposition

Because the case was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court denied as moot Feng’s motions for a preliminary injunction and for Administrative Procedure Act review. In its conclusion, the court stated that Tripp’s motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice, Feng’s motions were denied, and the Clerk was directed to close the file.