Skip to main content

STARRETT v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION (2018)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

William Henry STARRETT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION; Texas Military Department; United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command; United States Army Reserve Command; United States Army; United States Army Special Operations Command; United States Department of Defense; Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Lawrence Livermore National Security, L.L.C.; Sandia Corporation; National Nuclear Security Administration; United States Department of Energy; United States Special Operations Command, Defendants-Appellees

No. 18-10389

Decided: August 23, 2018

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges, William Henry Starrett, Jr., Pro Se Anthony Joseph Campiti, Sarah Hawa Bawany Yousuf, Counsel, Thompson & Knight, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Lockheed Martin Corporation Matthew Allen Deal, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, General Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Texas Military Department Brian Walters Stoltz, U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, United States Army Reserve Command, United States Army Special Operations Command, United States Department of Defense, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, National Nuclear Security Administration, United States Department of Energy, United States Special Operations Command, United States Army Christina Gratke Nason, Burford & Ryburn, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Lawrence Livermore National Security, L.L.C.

William Starrett, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed suit against various federal government and military agencies, the Texas Military Department, and large private corporations for violations of numerous federal laws. Starrett’s 149-page complaint alleged that defendants conspired to use him for mind experiments, targeted him with “Remote Neural Monitoring,” harassed him using “Voice to Skull” technology, and otherwise remotely monitored and controlled his thoughts, movements, sleep, and bodily functions.

The district court dismissed Starrett’s complaint against defendants Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and Sandia Corporation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. It then dismissed Starrett’s claims against Lockheed Martin corporation, the Texas Military Department, and various federal government agencies under Rule 12(b)(1), finding that the claims were “patently frivolous,” and under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that they were “fanciful, fantastic, or delusional.” Additionally, the court found that plaintiff’s claims against Lockheed Martin and Texas Military Department should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(5) because service was insufficient.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court has held that when allegations within a complaint are “so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, plainly unsubstantial, or no longer open to discussion,” a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974) (internal citations omitted). We agree with the district court’s characterizations of plaintiff’s claims and determinations that service on some of the defendants was improperly made. We affirm for essentially the reasons stated by that court.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Copied to clipboard