The Lawletter Vol. 50 No. 4
CIVIL PROCEDURE: UFOs, Aliens, and Helicopters: A Study in Improper Parties
Matthew T. McDavitt—Senior Attorney
By federal complaint filed January 9, 2013, plaintiff Shirley Durante—clearly suffering from some unstated mental health issue—sued defendants: (1) Massachusetts real estate broker Todd Sandler, (2) UFOs, (3) Aliens, and (4) Helicopters, alleging that aliens from Jupiter and Mars were harassing her:
Shirley Durante . . . complains that helicopters, UFOs, and aliens have been harassing her with laxatives and bright lights which burn her face and eyes. This harassment is destructive to her property as well, damaging three car mirrors. It appears that in some unspecified way Todd Sandler and family of Randolph, Massachusetts, have something to do with this harassment. Durante has written to the Department of Homeland Security and Senator Susan Collins about this harassment, but apparently has received no assistance. She has also gone to the Maine state courts seeking relief from the harassment. She has now determined that her recourse is to file a federal lawsuit.
Durante v. Sandler, No. 1:13-cv-00009-JAW, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16653, at *1 (D. Me. Jan. 9, 2013). Ms. Durante included as exhibits to such complaint: (1) an image of a ghostly alien face; (2) a fake news report she seemingly authored containing the same idiomatic language and frequent misspellings as her complaint stating that “top secret” information confirms that 35,000 aliens are active in the United States abducting people and probing them, evidenced by lights being shone to one’s eyes, objects being surgically implanted into one’s body, the development of anemia, interruption of normal bladder & bowel function, and the presence of mysterious helicopters; (3) a letter she drafted to U.S. Senator Susan Collins seeking assistance in getting the alleged alien harassment to cease; (4) a letter purportedly from a local optometrist informing the judge, the district attorney, and the local police department that Shirley should not have bright lights shone in her face; (5) a letter supposedly from a local family medical practice in support of restraining aliens from harassing her, though again, evidencing her own idiomatic language; (6) a letter purportedly from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (though incorrectly naming the director of such department) ordering the aliens to refrain from stalking her, damaging her cars, probing her body, causing bodily harm, conducting mind scans, and placing optical sensors in her eyeglasses, windows, and/or vehicle windshield; and (7) a Complaint for Protection from Harassment under 5 M.R.S.A. §§ 4651 et seq. naming as Defendant “Any Alien Life Form involved.”
From a civil procedure standpoint, aside from Defendant Todd Sandler, the three other named Defendants are plainly improper under federal practice, as such parties are by nature non-suable entities, i.e.: (1) UFOs, (2) Aliens, and (3) Helicopters, as vehicles and the alleged extraterrestrial entities are not amenable to receiving service of process because neither vehicles nor purported space aliens are legal “persons” under U.S. law.
In one analogous federal opinion, a prisoner attempted to sue the Devil, “alleg[ing] that Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and . . . placed deliberate obstacles in his path and has caused plaintiff's downfall” and imprisonment. United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan & His Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282, 283 (W.D. Pa. 1971). The federal district court rejected the plaintiff’s designation of Satan as a proper defendant on the ground that service of process could not be effectuated on an alleged supernatural entity with no fixed address. Id.
In the present matter, Plaintiff Shirley Durante likewise improperly named as party Defendants entities wholly lacking the capacity to be served with process, namely: (1) inanimate vehicles (UFOs and helicopters), and (2) alleged supernatural beings (aliens). Because helicopters, UFOs, and aliens are not legal entities capable of being sued, the complaint claims against such vehicles and purported extraterrestrial beings were dismissed for failing to identify proper parties against whom relief could be granted. It is axiomatic that “[w]hen a party does not have the capacity to be sued, a court lacks personal jurisdiction over it.” Copeland v. Morgan Stanley Cap. Tr., No. CV 23-3536-AB (JPR), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155948, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2024).
In the Durante v. Sandler suit, the Complaint was summarily dismissed by the United States District Court for the District of Maine by a judgment dated February 6, 2013, on the stated grounds that the action was fundamentally frivolous, as “the plaintiff’s allegations are both irrational and wholly incredible . . . .” 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16653, at *2 (accepting the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision filed January 9, 2013).
