Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Malloy v. Bible

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

December 21, 2017

LINDA D. MALLOY, Plaintiff,


          Denise Page Hood Chief Judge.

         1. INTRODUCTION

         In response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 10, 2017. Dkt. No. 34. Plaintiff has filed a response, and the Court held a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss on December 20, 2017. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.


         On February 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court against Defendant, a religious organization also known as the “Jehovah Witnesses.” On May 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. A clerk's entry of default was entered on May 24, 2017, but it was set aside on August 30, 2017 due to improper service. After acceptance of service of the Amended Complaint, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss.

         Plaintiff's Amended Complaint consists of 752 pages (her initial complaint was 174 pages). Plaintiff asserts six claims in her Amended Complaint, one count based on an alleged violation of each of the following federal laws: (1) 18 U.S.C. § 1201; (2) 18 U.S.C. §241; (3) Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)); (4) 18 U.S.C. § 1346; (5) 18 U.S.C. § 2340A; and (6) Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972. Plaintiff's claims stem from a number of alleged actions by Defendant that harmed Plaintiff, including:

[K]idnapping in infancy and as a young adult, [being] separated from parent, family and country for 53 yrs.[, ] [Defendant] unlawfully took my children and had adopted, arranged (5) sexual aggravated offenses including statutory, mutilated and dismembered, denied education for self and children, denied legitimate employment for 38 yrs, orchestrated (5) car accidents to injure-causing multiple injuries, defamation of character, physical and mental torture for 16 yrs, physical abuse for 49 yrs, monopolized and defrauded of revenue, secretively implanted the Nkultra Military Device, forged identity, inundated compulsive conceptions, attempts of murder, inventions of criminal an[d] psychological incidents, 30 yrs. of destruction of property, innumerable irreversible damages and 53 yrs in a conspiracy that denies liberty and justice and coerces slavery.

See Dkt. No. 11, PgID 1204.


         A. Personal Jurisdiction - Rule 12(b)(2)

         1. The Law

         When a defendant files a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that personal jurisdiction over the defendant exists. Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883, 887 (6th Cir. 2002); Theunissen v. Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454, 1458 (6th Cir. 1991). In addressing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court may, in its discretion: (1) conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve any factual issues, (2) proceed to discovery, or (3) decide the issue based on the pleadings and affidavits alone. McCluskey v. Belford High Sch., 795 F.Supp.2d 608, 615 (E.D.Mich. 2010) (citing Serras v. First Tenn. Bank Nat. Assn., 875 F.2d 1212, 1214 (6th Cir. 1989) (the court may conduct an evidentiary hearing or allow discovery if the written submissions raise disputed issues of fact or seem to require determinations of credibility)).

         When the Court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing, it must consider the pleadings and affidavits in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Lifestyle Lift Holding Co., Inc. v. Prendiville, 768 F.Supp.2d 929, 932 (E.D. Mich. 2011). “In this circumstance, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction; the court does not consider the controverting assertions of the party moving for dismissal.” Id. In a diversity case, the plaintiff has established a prima facie case when it shows that the federal court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendants is authorized by both the law of the forum state and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Neogen Corp., 282 F.3d at 888.

         A federal district court applies the jurisdictional statute, or long-arm statute, of the state in which it sits. See, e.g., Amway Corp. v. Kope Food Products, Inc., 840 F.Supp. 78, 80 (W.D. Mich. 1993). Michigan's long-arm statute allows Michigan courts to exercise jurisdiction to the full extent allowed by the federal due process requirements. Michigan Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 954 F.2d 1174, 1176 (6th Cir. 1992). In order for a Michigan court's exercise of jurisdiction over a defendant to be consistent with due process, a plaintiff must show that the defendant had ‚Äúcertain minimum contacts with [Michigan] such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.