Mesa v. Mesa, City of 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
Marilyn Mesa,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Mesa, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-06099-PHX-KML
ORDER
Plaintiff Marilyn Mesa alleges she refused “to engage with unsolicited recruitment
efforts and anonymous gift subscriptions sent to her residence by undisclosed third-party
entities.” (Doc. 1-2 at 10.) Immediately after that, unidentified individuals or entities began
a campaign of “overt, high-level aerial surveillance and electronic interference centered at
[Mesa’s] residence.” (Doc. 1-2 at 10.) Mesa alleges “[t]here are no authorized flights for
commercial airlines around [her] location,” but after she rejected the recruitment and gift
subscriptions, “aircraft engage in persistent, circling, non-transit loitering or unlawful
surveillance.” (Doc. 1-2 at 11.) These aircraft are engaged in “Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance operational tactics.” (Doc. 1-2 at 11.) That activity has resulted in
Mesa suffering “second-degree radiation burns, neurological injuries, and dental damage.”
(Doc. 1-2 at 5.) The original complaint alleged the surveillance and harmful exposure
violated both the Arizona and United States constitutions. (Doc. 1-2 at 50.)
Mesa filed her complaint in state court against the unidentified operators of the
aircraft and the City of Mesa (“the City”). Although not entirely clear, Mesa appeared to
Case 2:26-cv-06099-KML Document 24 Filed 10/08/26 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
allege the City refused to investigate her complaints regarding aircraft activity. In Mesa’s
view, the City “systematically prioritized administrative obstruction over the investigation
of the severe criminal injuries” caused by the aircraft. (Doc. 1-2 at 28.) The City removed
the case to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.)
After the court denied Mesa’s request for emergency injunctive relief (Doc. 6), as
well as her request to remand the case to state court (Doc. 8), the City filed a motion to
dismiss. That motion argues, among other points, that Mesa’s claims are “based on
fantastic or delusional scenarios.” (Doc. 9 at 3.) Mesa filed a response to that motion and a
motion to amend her complaint. (Docs. 19, 20.)
In opposing the motion to dismiss, Mesa argues her claims do not qualify as fantastic
or delusional because of the evidence she has gathered. As for the motion to amend, Mesa
seeks to remove references to federal law, but the factual allegations involve the same
behavior. That is, the proposed amended complaint is still based on aerial surveillance and
radiation aimed at Mesa’s home, and the City’s alleged cooperation and assistance in those
activities. (Doc. 19-1.)
A court may dismiss a frivolous complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Tr. v. Am. Honda
Fin. Corp., No. 2:16-cv-1237-ODW-SS, 2016 WL 756461, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2016).
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)). Mesa’s allegations involving constant aerial
surveillance and irradiation of her home after she refused “recruitment efforts and
anonymous gift subscriptions” qualify as fantastic or delusional. The amended complaint
contains the same factual allegations, so granting leave to amend would be futile.
IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED. The complaint
is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and close this case.
Case 2:26-cv-06099-KML Document 24 Filed 10/08/26 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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 14) is
GRANTED. The court has reviewed the opposition to the motion to dismiss filed at Doc.
20.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Allow Electronic Filing (Doc. 18)
and Motion to Amend (Doc. 19) are DENIED.
Dated this 8th day of October, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-06099-KML Document 24 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 3