United States District Court, District of Columbia
TERESITA A. CANUTO, Plaintiff,
REP. NANCY PELOSI, et al., Defendants.
E. BOASBERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se Plaintiff Teresita Canuto's Complaint alleges
that a “paramilitary of illegal aliens”
repeatedly sexually assaulted her over the course of five
years, mainly while she was drugged or unconscious. She seeks
to hold State and Federal representatives accountable for
failing to enact legislation that could have - theoretically
- sheltered her from the alleged assaults. Because the
Complaint strings together a series of farfetched
allegations, which Defendants' conduct could not have
caused, this Court grants the pending Motions to Dismiss for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
alleges that, between 2014 and 2019, she was “besieged
by illegal aliens with sexual assaults and batteries”
in her California home while “she and [her] family were
put into [a] deep sleep or unconscious[ness].” ECF No.
1 (Pl. Statement of Facts), ¶ 1. She claims that a
“paramilitary of illegal aliens, ” id.,
¶ 24, that “w[as] affiliated to the group
responsible [for] the Sri Lanka Bombing of the Catholic
Church, ” ECF No. 9 (Supplemental Complaint), ¶ 6,
repeatedly assaulted her on “a scheduled basis.”
Pl. SOF, ¶ 14. She believes that the attacks must have
been an organized effort, as “this type of domestic
terrorism . . . would not be possible without somebody
financing or paying the expenses” of the alleged
attacks. Id. Canuto says that she later
“realized . . . that the task of sexual assaults was
transferred to illegal aliens who were accommodated [and]
assisted by [her] neighbors.” Id., ¶ 7.
support her theory, Plaintiff points to parking patterns
around her apartment: “At times, the whole parking area
inside was full of many cars/trucks . . . [that] stayed for
[a] night after plaintiff was sexually assaulted [and then]
would be gone.” Supp. Compl., ¶ 4. “[O]ther
illegal aliens that come from other states . . . were
involved, ” as shown by the fact that “there were
cars that surged in the apartment complex . . . and stayed
for days sometimes a week with . . . plate licenses from
other states.” Pl. SOF, ¶ 14. Canuto also alleges
that she “was stalked . . . by many civilians with
stickers of U.S. Army and U.S. Navy . . . at the rear of
their vehicles.” Id., ¶ 7. Allegedly,
this “paramilitary of illegal aliens”
“communicate[d] to each other through the use of
stickers attached at the back of their cars.”
Id., ¶ 24.
claims that “many illegal aliens were also follow[ing
her] whenever [she] went.” Id., ¶ 22. For
instance, “after plaintiff was attacked sexually, later
plaintiff began to be tailgate[d] by a vehicle along th[e]
way in the road. Then sexual assault happened again.”
Supp. Compl., ¶ 6. She was also
“intimidated” by “a middle eastern
feature[d] male adult . . . accompanied [by] . . . a young
Hispanic female adult” in a “brand new SUV (Range
Rover)” after he “wave[d her] on and did a
gesture to look up at him. And after [she] looked up at him,
he began dancing half of his body and right arm while still
driving . . . [and] he gave [her] a thumbs up sign and went
ahead of [her].” Pl. SOF, ¶ 21.
specifics of the alleged assaults remain unclear. As evidence
that they occurred, Canuto cites myriad injuries including
that her “left eyebrow [was] shaved” and she had
“cuts or laceration[s] in body parts.” ECF No. 1
(Complaint) at 4. Additionally, “the attacker le[ft]
remnants of his act” after the sexual assaults by
“revers[ing her] underwear, ” “fix[ing] the
sheet . . . of her couch, ” and “fix[ing] [her]
credit or debit cards nicely in her wallet.” Pl. SOF,
¶ 18. Plaintiff described the in-home assaults thus:
Skills in carpentry w[ere] used as a weapon by illegal aliens
in penetrating or trespassing the residence of plaintiff.
Adult in size and height of pygmies are also used to climb
the windows, penetrate the ceiling and enter the vent. Then
he would open the main door of the apartment to let the
attacker come[ ]in and attack the plaintiff in [a] deep
Id., ¶ 22. In one instance, Plaintiff alleges
that a “man that followed her in the parking lot of
Vons Supermarket was the suspect” in a specific
assault. Id., ¶ 13. As proof, she
“enclosed evidence of [a] receipt from Vons
Supermarket.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that she
was unable to catch any of her attackers after
“put[ting up] a video camera” in her home because
“the people also involved in the planned attack . . .
were able to manipulate the records of video and stopped the
recording during plaintiff['s] . . . attack at night
while in deep sleep.” Supp. Compl., ¶ 3.
the named Defendants - members of Congress and State
lawmakers - Plaintiff claims that they “negligen[tly] .
. . allow[ed] illegal aliens” to infringe on U.S.
sovereignty “by establishing their own
paramilitary” in California. See Pl. SOF,
¶ 24. She now seeks $20, 000, 000 in damages for each
alleged assault, totaling $1, 200, 000, 000 in relief.
See Compl. at 6.
survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), Plaintiff
bears the burden of proving that the Court has subject-matter
jurisdiction to hear her claims. See Lujan v. Defs. of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992); Harris v.
Sebelius, 932 F.Supp.2d 150, 151 (D.D.C. 2013). A court
has an “affirmative obligation to ensure that it is
acting within the scope of its jurisdictional
authority.” Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of
Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F.Supp.2d 9, 13 (D.D.C. 2001).
Pleadings by pro se plaintiffs are held “to
less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
filing separate Motions to Dismiss, the members of Congress
and California Governor Gavin Newsom articulate myriad
arguments. The Court need look only to subject-matter
jurisdiction, which it lacks because: (1) Plaintiff's
claims are “patently insubstantial, ” (2) she has
no standing, and (3) even had her claims been ...