Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Kulik v. United States

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

August 8, 2018

DOROTHY KULIK, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES; STATE OF HAWAII; and COUNTY OF KAUAI, Defendants.

          ORDER (1) GRANTING IFP APPLICATION; AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

          J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On August 7, 2019, pro se Plaintiff Dorothy Kulik (“Plaintiff” or “Kulik”) filed: (1) an Application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”), ECF No. 3; (2) a Motion for Leave to File Petition, ECF No. 1-2; (3) a Complaint and Request for Injunctions and Mandamus (“Complaint”), ECF No. 1; (4) a Notice of Constitutional Challenge of Statutes and Constitutional Amendment, ECF No. 4; and (5) a Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunctions and Mandamus and Temporary Restraining Order Pending FBI Investigation (“Motion for TRO”), ECF No. 2.

         In her Motion for TRO, Kulik seeks “immediate entry of a Temporary Restraining Order without notice to Respondents State of Hawaii and County of Kauai, and all persons acting on their behalf, restraining in each and every way pled herein below until such time as the required investigation by the Austin FBI is complete and evidence can be presented at the hearing.” Motion for TRO at 2 (emphasis omitted).

         For the reasons that follow, the IFP Application is GRANTED, and the Motion for TRO is DENIED.[1]

         II. IFP APPLICATION

         Because Plaintiff has made the required showing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis (i.e., without prepayment of fees), the court GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP Application.

         III. BACKGROUND

         A. The Complaint

         Although the Complaint is far from clear, or even understandable at times, the court does its best to interpret its allegations. The following is a summary of that attempt.

         First, Kulik asserts eleven (11) seemingly academic “constitutional” questions regarding a range of issues. Compl. at 1-4. Kulik then appears to claim that the Supreme Court of the United States should exercise original jurisdiction over this matter. Specifically, she claims that “[t]he exclusive judicial powers of SCOTUS in its original jurisdiction cannot be transferred to an inferior court, ” and that “[f]ailure by the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii to recognize my citizen sovereignty constitutes treason[.]” Id. at 7.

         Kulik generally alleges wrongdoing in connection with the handling of her medical marijuana card (referred to as a “329 Card”), but her specific allegations are not clear. Id. at 13. She also alleges that “Kauai is Full of Feces, ” id., and that the Kauai Veterans Medical Center is engaged in income tax evasion, id. at 14. In addition, she alleges that the Kauai Police Department “use[s] . . . lethal force through burning Human Beings to death on The Point.”[2] Id. She also alleges that she has “been confronted with illegal behavior from alleged government and law enforcement in Hawaii so consistently since [she] first arrived July 18, 2013, that [she has] good reason to believe there is no law and order on the Hawaiian Islands and therefore, U.S. Marshals must be sent in to restore law and order.” Id. at 15. Kulik also alleges, confusingly, that the Eleventh Amendment to the constitution is unconstitutional. Id. at 23.

         The Complaint seeks “to hold U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions or his replacement responsible for the ongoing criminal activity by a wide variety of subversives and traitors embedded in the United States government whom he has failed to curtail in dereliction of his duty” through an order requiring Attorney General Sessions or his replacement to show cause, among other things, why: (1) former FBI Director James Comey has not been indicted; (2) “F.B.I. agents are ordered to stand down before every act of terrorism”; and (3) “the murderers of Lavoy Finnicum have not been indicted.” Id. at 18-25. The Complaint further seeks an order “repealing the 17th Amendment” to the United States Constitution. Id. at 26.

         B. The ...


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.