Preview:

Todd v NASA et al

Doc. 3

3:05-cv-00922-MBS

Date Filed 04/06/2005

Entry Number 3

Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Bradley Todd, aka Leamon Bradley Todd, Plaintiff, vs. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); and State of South Carolina, Defendants. _________________________________________

) C/A No. 3:05-0922-24BD ) ) ) ) Report and Recommendation ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Background of this Case The plaintiff is confined at a residential care facility, which is under contract to the South Carolina Department of Mental Health. The plaintiff has submitted a pleading, purportedly raising civil rights claims, in letter form. The plaintiff has apparently filed the case here after the Clerk's Office of the Supreme Court of the United States apprised the plaintiff that the pleading could not be filed in the Supreme Court of the United States.1 The Clerk of
1

The plaintiff is obviously "in custody." For example, federal courts have long assumed that the "in custody" jurisdictional requirement is satisfied when a habeas applicant seeks release from involuntary confinement in a mental institution to which he or she has been (continued...) 1

Dockets.Justia.com

3:05-cv-00922-MBS

Date Filed 04/06/2005

Entry Number 3

Page 2 of 11

Court has filed the pleading as of the date it was received for docketing.2 Since the pleading does not contain a caption, the undersigned has authorized the Clerk to docket the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); and the State of South Carolina as defendants. In the pleading, the plaintiff refers to a company that he founded in 1987, Venus Enterprises. The plaintiff appears to be alleging that various state and federal governmental agencies or departments have conspired with one another to have the plaintiff committed to a mental institution, so that the plaintiff's copyrights could be "deleted" and the defendants could

(...continued) civilly committed pursuant to the order of a state court. See, e.g., Sarzen v. Gaughan, 489 F.2d 1076, 1081-82 (1st Cir. 1973); Bailey v. Gardebring, 940 F.2d 1150, 1153 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied sub nom., Bailey v. Noot, 503 U.S. 952 (1992); United States ex rel. Stachulak v. Coughlin, 520 F.2d 931, 933-34 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied sub nom. Coughlin v. Stachulak, 424 U.S. 947 (1976); Norwood v. Jacobs, 430 F.2d 903, 903-04 (D.C. Cir. 1970). See also 2 Liebman & Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure 202 & n. 20,

Download 20374.pdf

South Carolina Law