Hardeman-Crossan v. Phoenix Police Department et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
April Hardeman-Crossan,
Plaintiff,
v.
Phoenix Police Department, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-03397-PHX-KML
ORDER
Plaintiff April Hardeman-Crossan filed a complaint and an application to proceed
in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 3.) The application is granted but that requires the court
determine whether plaintiff has stated a claim for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). She
has not.
Plaintiff alleges she is “under 24 hour surveillance against [her] will by vehicle and
drones.” (Doc. 1 at 7.) Plaintiff alleges she was first followed by drones in 2009 at her
workplace. (Doc. 1 at 13.) In 2011, plaintiff “started noticing the feeling coming from the
drones” and “[t]he feelings hurt.” (Doc. 1 at 13.) In 2016, plaintiff’s ex-husband filed a
false police report. (Doc. 1 at 13.) And from 2016 to 2018, plaintiff was involved in a
custody dispute or other legal proceedings with her ex-husband. (Doc. 1 at 14.) It is not
clear how the false police report or legal proceedings relate to the surveillance and drones.
As of 2025, drones and unidentified persons follow plaintiff into grocery stores, to
her place of work, and to her daughter’s place of work. (Doc. 1 at 8.) Beginning in April
2025, plaintiff complained to the Phoenix Police Department that she was being stalked.
Case 2:26-cv-03397-KML Document 9 Filed 05/26/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Phoenix Police Department did not take any action in response to plaintiff’s
complaints. Plaintiff appears to believe the drones belong to the state or local government
and the persons stalking her are also somehow connected to law enforcement. But
plaintiff’s allegations regarding this connection are difficult to understand. The connection
appears to involve the Phoenix Police Department using “watchmen or posse members.”
(Doc. 1 at 29.)
Plaintiff filed this suit against the Phoenix Police Department, the City of Phoenix,
and the State of Arizona. Her theory appears to be that government officials know of the
illegal drone activities targeting plaintiff but have refused to act (Doc. 1 at 17), or
government officials themselves are “using a weaponized drone on” her. (Doc. 1 at 28.)
Plaintiff believes the drone usage and other activities violate her rights under the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments. She seeks $30 million dollars in damages as well as “[l]aws
making all parties uphold the law.” (Doc. 1 at 4.)
A court may dismiss a wholly insubstantial and frivolous complaint for lack of
jurisdiction. Bradshaw v. MI5, Off. of the Inspector General, No. 25-4397, 2026 WL
1258776, at *1 (9th Cir. May 7, 2026). A complaint qualifies as frivolous when it “lacks
an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
There is no arguable basis when the facts alleged “are fanciful, fantastic and delusional.”
Frost v. Office of Attorney Gen., No. 17-cv-04983-JSW, 2018 WL 6704137, at *1 (N.D.
Cal. Dec. 20, 2018) (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)). Plaintiff’s
factual allegations regarding constant drone surveillance, unidentified individuals altering
the hinges on her door, and “watchmen or posse members,” lack an arguable basis in fact.
The complaint is dismissed on that basis.
Even assuming the complaint’s factual allegations were more plausible, the
complaint would still be subject to dismissal. The Phoenix Police Department is a “non-
jural entity” that cannot be sued. Machowicz v. Maricopa Cnty., No. CV-21-00316-PHX-
JJT, 2021 WL 4319206, at *3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 23, 2021). And plaintiff cannot sue the State
of Arizona in federal court. Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. 30, 39 (2021).
Case 2:26-cv-03397-KML Document 9 Filed 05/26/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Although it is possible plaintiff could file suit against the City of Phoenix, the complaint
does not identify the particular City of Phoenix employees who allegedly harmed plaintiff
and the city cannot be sued “solely because an injury was inflicted by its employees or
agents[.]” Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff
also fails to identify any policy or practice that harmed her. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).
Based on the factual allegations lacking an arguable basis and the legal flaws with
the identified defendants, leave to amend would be futile. See, e.g., Weisman v. Paparo,
No. 2:25-CV-00222-LK, 2025 WL 2337263, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 13, 2025).
IT IS ORDERED the Application (Doc. 3) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Allow Electronic Filing (Doc. 4) is
DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment of dismissal
without prejudice and close this case.
Dated this 26th day of May, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-03397-KML Document 9 Filed 05/26/26 Page 3 of 3