Bradshaw v. Office of the Inspector General MI5
- Susan Illston
- 3:25-cv-03983
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bradshaw v. Office of the Inspector General MI5, Judge Illston dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because the allegations were legally frivolous and fictitious.
Rebecca L. Bradshaw and the other plaintiffs, and the Office of the Inspector General MI5 and the other defendants, were affected by the dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction.
What happened
Rebecca Bradshaw filed this lawsuit for herself and apparently her mother against the Office of the Inspector General MI5 and former President George H.W. Bush. The complaint alleged decades of remote torture, DNA theft, child trafficking, and other conduct involving British and U.S. officials.
The court said the complaint did not establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked legal authority to hear the case. It concluded that the allegations were fictitious and legally frivolous, including claims about a decades-long remote-torture campaign that was too fantastical to be treated as true.
Judge Susan Illston dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The opinion also states that allowing an amendment would be futile.
The detailed version
- Bradshaw v. Office of the Inspector General MI5 · No. 3:25-cv-03983
- Susan Illston
- June 25, 2025
Background
Self-represented plaintiff Rebecca L. Bradshaw filed the lawsuit against the “Office of the Inspector General for MI5, DNA Warfare and Research and Development Acquisition” and former President George H.W. Bush. The complaint appeared to assert claims for Bradshaw and her mother, Patricia Ralph, although the opinion does not separately clarify the mother’s status as a party.
The complaint alleged that Bradshaw had been tortured or subjected to “counter torture” beginning when she was a minor in 1978. It attributed the alleged conduct to an order issued by George H.W. Bush when he was Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and claimed that British intelligence agency MI5 carried out the conduct remotely. The allegations included remote interrogation, unlawful copying and confiscation of DNA, child trafficking, and other described forms of torture. The complaint invoked the United States Constitution and federal and state criminal statutes.
Jurisdiction analysis
The court explained that it has an independent duty to determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the lawsuit. It cited decisions stating that an obviously frivolous complaint may be dismissed before service of process and that claims based on bizarre conspiracy theories, fantastic government manipulation, or supernatural intervention may be treated as fictitious.
The court concluded that the complaint did not demonstrate a basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Comparing the allegations to claims rejected in the cases it cited, the court found the allegations of a decades-long campaign of remote torture conducted by a foreign government and orchestrated by George H.W. Bush to be fictitious and legally frivolous. The court stated that the allegations were sufficiently fantastical to defy reality as commonly understood and therefore did not have to accept them as true.
Disposition
The court stated that allowing leave to amend would be futile. Judge Susan Illston accordingly DISMISSED the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.