Teri Smith Tyler Lawsuit
Teri Smith Tyler, Plaintiff, v. James Carter, William Clinton, Ross Perot, 
American Cyanamid, Iron Mountain Security Corporation, Defense Intelligence 
Agency, IBM, David Rockerfeller, Rockerfeller Fund, BCCI, Nasa, Defendants.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
92 Civ. 8658 (CSH)
Filed & Decided November 5, 1993

Counsel: Teri Smith Tyler, Pro Se.
Mary Jo White, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, 100 
Church Street, New York, NY 10007.

Attorneys for Defendants President Clinton, Defense Intelligence Agency and 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, William J. Hoffman, Esq., 
Assistant United States Attorney.

Before District Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. Memorandum Opinion & Order
This case is before the Court on a motion to dismiss by defendants President 
Clinton, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (the "Federal defendants"). Plaintiff has also filed an order to 
show cause why the World Trade Center Bombing Trial should not be enjoined. For 
the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's order to show cause is denied, and the 
Clerk of the Court is directed to dismiss the complaint.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Teri Smith Tyler, appearing pro se, filed a complaint in December 1992 
alleging a bizarre conspiracy involving the defendants to enslave and oppress 
certain segments of our society. Plaintiff contends she is a cyborg, and that 
she received most of the information which forms the basis for her complaint, 
through "proteus", which I read to be some silent, telepathic form of 
communication. See complaint, at 1, and Affidavit accompanying November 1993 
Order to Show Cause, at P g. She asserts that the defendants are involved in the 
"Iron Mountain Plan", which provides for the reinstitutionalization of slavery 
and "bloodsports" (which she identifies as death-hunting [n1] and 
witch-hunting), and the oppression of political dissidents, herself included. 
Plaintiff's complaint alleges a number of personal indignities visited upon her 
by defendants: "strafing of my dormitory room by planes and helicopters, the 
electronic bugging of my student rooms and apartments, deliberate noise 
harassment, blasting of loud rock music with lyrics designed for witch-hunts 
(music about social pariahs) . . . students following me around to prevent me 
from studying, whispering campaigns and social ostrification . . ." Complaint, 
at 1-2. Plaintiff also makes the following allegations against the defendants. 
Former President Jimmy Carter was the secret head of the Ku Klux Klan; Bill 
Clinton is the biological son of Jimmy Carter; President Clinton and Ross Perot 
have made fortunes in the death-hunting industry, and are responsible for the 
murder of at least 10 million black women in concentration camps, their bodies 
sold for meat and their skin turned into leather products. The defendants are 
also responsible for breeding farms, which turn out 2,000 black girls a year, 
who are then sold for recreational murder or as human pets. Additionally, the 
defendants utilize weather control and earthquake technology to threaten other 
countries that object to the Iron Mountain plan.

Plaintiff asks the Court to grant her the following relief:
1. $ 5.6 billion in compensatory and punitive damages;
2. A physical accounting of all black women born since 1940, including their 
present whereabouts, and for those who have died, an investigation into how they 
died;
3. The purchase of land in Africa for the emigration of abused black women;
4. The bringing to justice of those responsible for the American holocaust;
5. An investigation into the foster care system, and a physical accounting of 
all black children placed into foster care;
6. An end to slavery in the United States;
7. The end of the cyborg program run by NASA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, 
American Cyanimid and IBM;
8. An end to the organ-donor program.

While plaintiff was trying to effect proper service of the summons and complaint 
on the defendants, she made a number of appeals to the Court for interim relief 
in the form of Orders to Show Cause. On January 20, 1993, she asked the Court to 
enjoin the inauguration of President Clinton. The Court denied her request as 
moot. In August, 1993, she moved to enjoin the installation of Louis Freeh as 
Director of the FBI on the ground that Clinton appointed Freeh only so Freeh 
could cover up evidence of Clinton's wrongdoing. That motion was denied, as it 
lacked a sufficient evidentiary basis.

Presently before the Court is an Order to Show Cause why the Court should not 
enjoin the trial in the World Trade Center bombing case, now proceeding in this 
Court before Judge Duffy. Plaintiff alleges that President Clinton ordered the 
bombing of the World Trade Center in order to justify war with Iraq. In support 
of her application, plaintiff describes certain "proteus" communications she had 
with other individuals. Plaintiff alleges that the United States invaded Panama 
and arrested General Noriega because Noriega objected to United States soldiers 
raiding Indian tribes in Central America for child sex slaves to torture in 
American cocaine based thrill-killing rackets. Plaintiff contends she wrote to 
Noriega asking him to join in her lawsuit, but that United States soldiers 
holding Noriega beat him when he asked for his mail.
Plaintiff asserts that in 1988, Rajiv Ghandi spoke to her through "proteus" and 
informed her that he was being held prisoner and sexually abused by a man whom 
he had caught stealing from the funds generated by the Bhopal disaster 
settlement. According to plaintiff, Yasser Arafat tried to confirm Ghandi's tale 
of abuse on behalf of the plaintiff, to no avail.
Plaintiff additionally contends that Gulf War against Iraq was undertaken so 
that America could restock its sexual slavery camps, which had been depleted. 
According to plaintiff, 40,000 Iraqi soldiers captured by the United States, 
selected for their physical attractiveness, have been brought to this country 
where they were "being beaten, forced to run gauntlets and homosexually 
gang-raped by American soldiers." Plaintiff claims to have confronted Secretary 
of Defense Cheney with evidence of this allegation. Cheney, through "proteus", 
purportedly told the plaintiff, "Well, we were so sick and tired of killing 
black girls. We just had to put some variety back into our death-hunting 
industry. And they (Persians) are incredibly beautiful. The beauty of the face 
heightens the pleasure of the kill. I know of no higher pleasure than the 
gang-rape of exceedingly beautiful people."
Additionally, plaintiff alleges that the Serbian government, the "Nazi Bund", 
the Bank of Commerce and Credit International ("BCCI") are also involved in the 
conspiracy.

Attached to plaintiff's papers, and apparently offered to support her claim, are 
a number of exhibits. Most prominent among the exhibits is a book by Robert 
Ellis Smith entitled Privacy: How to Protect What's Left of It (1979), and a 
four page illustrated pamphlet advertising pornographic movies starring young 
men. Plaintiff has circled a number of photos of naked men who appear to be of 
Mediterranean or Latin American descent, which I interpret as her evidence that 
Iraqi and Central American men are enslaved in pornographic "rackets".
Plaintiff appears to have effected service on few of the named defendants. 
Although IBM and BCCI each made an appearance (and successfully moved to have 
the claims against them dismissed), plaintiff never filed proof of service 
against either defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(g). Service was 
eventually made against the Federal Defendants, but it may have been effected 
more than 120 days after filing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j).
IBM's motion to dismiss the complaint against it was granted by Order dated 
September 29, 1993. That same order dismissed the claims against BCCI, to the 
extent they could be asserted against the Superintendent who was supervising the 
dissolution of BCCI. Currently pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss 
by the remaining defendants, and the Order to Show Cause to enjoin the World 
Trade Center bombing trial.

DISCUSSION

In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989), 
a state prisoner commenced a federal action by filing a motion to proceed in 
forma pauperis and a complaint under 42 U.S.C. s 1983 charging prison officials 
with violating his constitutional rights. The in forma pauperis statute, 28 
U.S.C. s 1915(d), authorizes courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis claim if, 
inter alia, the action is "frivolous." The district court dismissed the 
complaint sua sponte as frivolous under s 1915(d) on the ground that it failed 
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The Supreme 
Court affirmed the court of appeals. It held that "a complaint filed in forma 
pauperis is not automatically frivolous within the meaning of s 1915(d) because 
it fails to state a claim." Id. at 331.

The Court in Neitzke contrasted the judicial screening process available under 
the in forma pauperis statute with cases where the plaintiff pays the filing 
fees. Section 1915(d) screening reflects, the Court stated, congressional 
recognition "that a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by 
the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain 
from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits." Id. at 324. A 
complaint filed by a fee-paying litigant subject to economic incentives can be 
dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), but in such a case, the Court stated, Rule 
12(b)(6) "does not countenance . . . dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of 
a complaint's factual allegations. District judges looking to dismiss claims on 
such grounds must look elsewhere for legal support." Id. at 327 (footnote 
omitted). But the Court left open the question whether a district judge could 
ever dismiss a complaint sua sponte under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at 329 n.8 ("We 
have no occasion to pass judgment, however, on the permissible scope, if any, of 
sua sponte dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6)."). 

Among the factual claims subject to s 1915(d) dismissal as frivolous "are claims 
describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district 
judges are all too familiar." Id. at 328. The claims of plaintiff at bar may be 
so characterized. The question is whether such claims asserted by a fee-paying 
plaintiff are subject to sua sponte dismissal by a district court under Rule 
12(b)(6). I hold that they are.

A plaintiff asserting fantastic or delusional claims should not, by payment of a 
filing fee, obtain a license to consume limited judicial resources and put 
defendants to effort and expense. The policies arguing against sua sponte Rule 
12(b)(6) dismissals do not apply in these circumstances. The author of claims as 
irrational as these cannot be regarded as subject to the economic incentive to 
refrain from frivolous actions imposed by filing fees and court costs upon 
rational paying litigants. Similarly, a sua sponte dismissal of a complaint such 
as this cannot reasonably be said to deprive such a plaintiff of the opportunity 
of "clarifying his factual allegations so as to conform with the requirements of 
a valid legal cause of action." Neitzke at 329-30. If this Court cannot order 
sua sponte dismissal of this complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), no district court 
can ever dismiss sua sponte any complaint under the Rule.[ n2] I do not think 
that is the law.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to dismiss the complaint as to all defendants 
with prejudice and without costs. The Clerk is directed to refund to plaintiff 
her filing fee. Plaintiff's motion by Order to Show Cause to enjoin the World 
Trade Center bombing trial is denied.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York November 5, 1993 Charkes S, Haight, Jr., U.S.D.J.

FOOTNOTES

[n1] Death-hunting is described by plaintiff as follows: "In death-hunting, 
teams of pimps and harriers (women working for pimps) follow a black woman they 
want to force into sexual slavery and snuff rackets, try to wreck her employment 
prospects, isolate her socially, break her up with friends and family, often 
they try to force her onto welfare because it often circumscribes her choice of 
places to live. Sometimes members of a woman's family or her mate will be 
cooperative or part of death-hunting teams because participants get paid." 
Complaint, at 4.

[n2] Although the Federal defendants have moved to dismiss citing Rule 12(b)(6), 
I am dismissing this case sua sponte. Granting the Federal defendants' motion to 
dismiss would affect claims against only those defendants. Because I am acting 
sua sponte, the dismissal is effective as to all of the defendants.

Thanks to Andrew Bulhak for donating this item to our archives, and to Evan 
Corcoran for the original post.