`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
`
`IONE SKYE VASQUEZ,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`ELON MUSK et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil No. 25-1396 (GMM)
`
`
`
`
`
`OPINION AND ORDER
`
`On October 1, 2025, Ione Skye Vasquez (“Plaintiff”),
`proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against Elon Musk, Claire
`Boucher (a.k.a. Grimes), X Corp., Taylor Swift, Jack Dorsey,
`Bloomberg L.P., Barack Obama, Netflix, Inc., Donald Trump, and
`Alphabet Inc. (“Defendants”). (Docket No. 2). Plaintiff has also
`filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without
`Prepaying Fees or Costs (Docket No. 1), which is hereby granted.
`For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that the
`present Complaint must be, and is hereby, DISMISSED without
`prejudice.
`I. BACKGROUND
`Plaintiff is a resident of Loíza, Puerto Rico. (Docket No.
`2 at 1). Plaintiff alleges “that she is being assaulted by
`predatory algorithms and radiotelephonic abuse on multiple social
`media platforms, in addition to continued disruptions and
`Case 3:25-cv-01396-GMM Document 9 Filed 10/17/25 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil No. 25-1396 (GMM)
`Page -2-
`
`
`sabotage to her study and suspicious overheating of her computer
`device.” (Docket No. 8 at 1). Plaintiff – who refers to Defendants
`as “[h]er adversaries” – further allege that Defendants “are
`clearly committed” to “obstructing” her use of the internet and
`technological devices – in particular social media and video
`streaming platforms. ( Id.) As alleged, “as a result of her
`engagement with the Twitter platform, she experienced years of
`cyberstalking, sexual harassment, bullying, slander, sabotage,
`grooming, torture, psychological abuse and intellectual property
`theft that culminated in the production of musical artists Sza’s
`SOS album and Taylor Swift’s Midnights and The Tortured Poets
`Department.” (Docket No. 7 at 2).
`Plaintiff submitted over 150 pages of exhibits detailing
`lengthy allegations as to how Defendants purposefully interfered
`with her technolog ical devi ces with the overt intention of
`causing on Plaintiff physical harm and emotional distress. (Id.;
`Docket No. 8). Through her filings, Plaintiff has submitted
`hundreds of images – among the which figure social media posts,
`explicit images of Plaintiff herself, online advertisements,
`still images of movies, ‘screenshots’ of text and email messages
`- that purportedly showcase an intricate and years -long scheme
`of surveillance conducted by Defendants , and other public
`figures, against Plaintiff with the ultimate goal of causing
`Case 3:25-cv-01396-GMM Document 9 Filed 10/17/25 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil No. 25-1396 (GMM)
`Page -3-
`
`
`deliberate intimidation and harm. See generally (Docket No. 8).
`Plaintiff claims that Defendants ’ acts violate the Fourth
`Amendment, 17 U.S.C. § 501, 18 U.S.C. § 1831, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A,
`42 U.S.C. § 2276, the Violence Against Women Act, the Lanham Act,
`and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. See (Id. at 2). Plaintiff
`asks for a total amount of $6,550,000,000 in monetary damages, a
`portion of which Plaintiff commits to donating to local schools
`and police efforts. (Id. at 148).
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all
`civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
`the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim arises under federal
`law - within the meaning of § 1331 - if a federal cause of action
`emerges from the face of a well-pleaded complaint. City of Chicago
`v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 163 (1997).
`Nonetheless, a federal district court has the authority to
`dismiss a claim if the federal claim is frivolous or “so
`insubstantial, implausible . . . or otherwise completely devoid of
`merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” Steel Co. v.
`Citizens for a Better Env’t., 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998).
`A “frivolous” action is one that “lacks an arguable basis
`either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
`(1989). Claims are factually frivolous when they describe
`Case 3:25-cv-01396-GMM Document 9 Filed 10/17/25 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil No. 25-1396 (GMM)
`Page -4-
`
`
`“fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327–28; see also Denton
`v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).
`Dismissals based upon a finding of frivolousness “are often
`made sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare
`prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering
`such complaints.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324.
`III. ANALYSIS
`Plaintiff’s contentions as to a n enduring conspiracy by
`Defendants, and other public figures, to intentionally harm
`Plaintiff physically and emotionally by surveilling and
`sabotaging her technological equipment is, at best, “clearly
`baseless” and, at worst, patently incoherent and delusive. Id.
`at 327.
`As these words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness
`is appropriate in this case, given that the “facts alleged rise
`to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether
`or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to
`contradict them.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33.
`As the Supreme Court has stated, a Court may dismiss a claim
`as factually frivolous when the facts alleged are “fanciful,”
`“fantastic,” and “delusional.” Neitzke 490 U.S. at 32 5, 27-28.
`In light of the above - and even recognizing Plaintiff’s pro se
`status and affording the corresponding leniency to her filing,
`Case 3:25-cv-01396-GMM Document 9 Filed 10/17/25 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil No. 25-1396 (GMM)
`Page -5-
`
`
`the Court finds that the sua sponte dismissal of Plaintiff’s
`civil action is warranted.
`IV. CONCLUSION
`In view of the foregoing, the case is DISMISSED without
`prejudice. Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
` In San Juan, Puerto Rico, October 17, 2025.
`
` s/ Gina R. Méndez-Miró
` GINA R. MÉNDEZ-MIRÓ
` United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:25-cv-01396-GMM Document 9 Filed 10/17/25 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`