United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
Garrett Smith Stafford Creek Corrections Center Pro Se
G. Lloyd CITY OF VANCOUVER Assistant City Attorney Attorney
OPINION & ORDER
A. HERNÁNDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff John Garrett Smith, an inmate at Stafford Creek
Corrections Center in Washington, filed this action against
Defendant Sandra Aldridge claiming violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act. Defendant moves to dismiss this case for failure
to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the
Motion to Dismiss.
bench trial in Washington state court, Plaintiff was
convicted of second-degree attempted murder and second-degree
assault for physically beating and strangling his wife. Def.
Mot. Dismiss 3, ECF 10. The assault was inadvertently recorded
by Plaintiff in a voicemail left on his cell phone.
Id. at 3-4. After Plaintiff fled from the scene,
Plaintiff's stepdaughter came into possession of the cell
phone and noticed that there was a missed call and voicemail
from the family landline left around the time of the assault.
Id. at 4. Upon listening to the voicemail,
Plaintiff's stepdaughter gave the phone to a police
officer who then seized the phone and executed a search
warrant on it. Id. At trial, Plaintiff moved to
suppress the recording, but the trial court denied his
filed his present complaint on September 19, 2017, against
Defendant, a Vancouver City Police detective involved in
Plaintiff's criminal case. Compl., ECF 1; Def. Mot.
Dismiss 2. In his complaint, Plaintiff requests “relief
from extraordinary damages caused by hostile and severe
criminal acts committed ‘under color of law' by the
Defendant.” Compl. at 1. The Complaint broadly asserts
that the Defendant illegally and falsely imprisoned Plaintiff
for “fabricated” and “staged”
reasons. Compl. at 1. Plaintiff also asserts that he incurred
“extraordinary financial losses . . . due to the theft
and/or stultification of the Plaintiff's valuable,
proprietary Intellectual Properties applied in his
Professional Engineering Career” as well as his
“entire estate and physical assets.” Compl. at
1-2. The Complaint also appears to contain references to
various federal statutory causes of action: the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(“RICO”), the Americans with Disability Act
(“ADA”), and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
regard to Plaintiff's RICO claim, Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendant “stole the Plaintiff's smartphone,
” illegally invaded the smartphone with
“maliciously fraudulent Probable Cause” and
“a deceptive warrant obtained by guile.” Compl.
¶¶ 1-2. He alleges Defendant then concealed these
bad acts by perjuring herself as to the “illegal
disposal/destruction of the iPhone.” Compl. ¶ 3.
Plaintiff goes on to assert that the Defendant created fake
evidence in the form of an audio recording extracted from the
phone “to obtain illegal conviction for a prefabricated
crime that did NOT happen.” Compl. ¶ 4
(emphasis in original). He also alleges that Defendant lied
about her qualifications and certifications in order to
create the audio recording of a manufactured
“‘voice mail' inadvertently left by the
Plaintiff . . . in order to frame an innocent Autistic
man.” Compl. ¶ 5. Finally, he claims
“[m]alicious diversionary manipulation of the Autistic
Plaintiff by proffering false medical claims that are totally
refuted by all legitimate professional medical records, and
phone logs that clearly affirm claims (1), (2), (3), (4),
(5), all violative of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1961-1965 -
RICO.” Compl. ¶ 6.
Plaintiff's ADA claim, he appears to allege that the
Defendant violated the ADA by disparaging Plaintiff and
fabricating hysteria in “coercion” with local
media “to propagate her lies . . . and conceal her own
irrefutable and uncontested sinister pattern of
RICO-sadism” and hate crimes. Compl. ¶ 7. He
specifically alleges that she ganged up on, manipulated, and
made sport of the Plaintiff in violation of 42 U.S.C. 12101
as well as ADA and WHO standards of decency. Compl. ¶ 7.
Plaintiff appears to allege that Defendant violated the CFAA.
Specifically, Defendant alleges that she “literally
stole the Plaintiff's smart phone.” Compl. ¶
1; see also Pl. Mot. Proceed. Orig. Standing Grounds
(“Pl. Mot.”), ECF 8 (“The 9.14.17 suit is a
tort claim against 18 U.S.C. 1030 crimes.”). As
evidence of this, Plaintiff allges that Defendant
“logged it into police evidence 38 minutes PRIOR to the
time of the fake, staged D.V. incident per VPD's own
UPC-encoded records.” Compl. ¶ 1.
Plaintiff asserts that his state proceeding was a
“manufactured criminal case” that “does not
legally exist for want of jurisdiction (for lack of mandatory
judge signature to her bogus probable cause affidavit,
thereby rendering her fraudulent scam ‘case' VOID
AB INITIO).” Compl. ¶ 9. The specific relief
Plaintiff requests includes (1) a lifetime no-contact order
against the Defendant, (2) financial restitution in the
amount of $49, 700, 700.00, and (3) imprisonment of
Defendant. Compl. at 6.
one of many cases Plaintiff has brought against various
individuals and entities involved in the criminal prosecution
of Plaintiff. As discussed in the Court's November 20,
2017 Order, the six prior claims asserted by Plaintiff have
been dismissed for failure to state a claim, frivolity, and
maliciousness. Order 2-3, ECF 6.
motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the claims. Navarro v.
Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). “All
allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Am. Family Ass'n, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of
S.F., 277 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir. 2002). To survive a
motion to dismiss, a complaint “must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face[, ]” meaning “the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal ...