Pedotti v. Musk

Background

Holiday Oljii Anna Pedotti II, appearing without a lawyer, filed the action against Elon Musk; Neurolink; SpaceX; Mark Zuckerberg; the United States Government Accountability Office; Timothy M. Persons, a Government Accountability Office official; James-Christian Blockwood, another Government Accountability Office official; and additional defendants described in the complaint as acting in various capacities for companies and related entities. She alleged violations of constitutional rights and criminal law and may also have attempted to assert state-law claims. She sought damages and injunctive relief, meaning court orders requiring or prohibiting conduct.

The court had previously granted Pedotti permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It treated her later motions and submissions as supplements to the complaint. The court described those submissions as allegations concerning multiple unrelated incidents and experiences, including alleged digital attacks, weapons, abuse, censorship of social-media accounts, reproductive experiences, government recruitment, her modeling career, and a proposed international peace treaty.

Rulings

The court dismissed the claims seeking criminal investigation or prosecution of the defendants for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It explained that prosecutors decide whether to bring criminal charges and that neither a private plaintiff nor the court can direct prosecutors to initiate a criminal case.

The court dismissed Pedotti’s civil claims under federal law as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Applying the standard for complaints filed by people allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court concluded that the allegations appeared irrational and supplied no factual basis or legal theory for a viable federal civil claim.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Pedotti may have been attempting to assert. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims; the court declined to use that authority after dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

The court denied leave to amend because it concluded that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment. It dismissed the action, denied all pending motions as moot, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate those motions, and directed entry of judgment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion recounts warnings from prior related proceedings that further nonmeritorious or frivolous litigation could lead to a restriction on filing new actions without prior permission; it states that those warnings remained in effect.