Peter et al v. Wojcicki et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Maria Peter, et al.
v. Civil No. 21-cv-868-JL
Susan Diane Wojcicki, et al.
Report and Recommendation
A form complaint was filed by Maria Peter and Julika Berger
titled “Complaint for a Civil Case Alleging Negligence,”
(document no. 1), followed by a nearly identical amended
complaint (document no. 5).1 Maria Peter moved to proceed
without prepayment of filing fees (document no. 6). The
complaints are here for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2).
Standard of Review
This court conducts a preliminary review of complaints
filed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Claims
may be dismissed sua sponte, if, among other things, the court
lacks jurisdiction, a defendant is immune from the relief
sought, or the complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. See id. In considering whether the
complaint states a claim, the court determines if, stripped of
1 Two minors are also listed as plaintiffs.
Case 1:21-cv-00868-JL Document 7 Filed 05/23/22 Page 1 of 4

2
legal conclusions and with all reasonable inferences construed
in plaintiff's favor, the complaint contains “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief” upon which
relief can be granted. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citation omitted). In undertaking this review, the
court is mindful that pro se complaints must be construed
liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
curiam).
Discussion
Maria Peter and Julika Berger, purportedly also acting on
behalf of their minor children, reside in Austria and Germany,
respectively. They bring claims against Susan Diane Wojcicki as
“CEO online video platform YT,” William Gates, as president of
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Stephane Bancel as “CEO
Mode-RNA Therapeutics,” and Albert Bourla as “CEO Pfizer Inc.”
They allege that they were injured in 2021 “by mental disease
Akva-A” because the defendants “failed to keep the risk of
synthetic bioweapon-attacks at the 10%-low, but rose it to a
70%-high,” which appears to be related to the coronavirus world
pandemic. Doc. 5, at 4. Each plaintiff claims $25,000 in
compensatory damages, and together they claim $16 trillion in
punitive damages.
Case 1:21-cv-00868-JL Document 7 Filed 05/23/22 Page 2 of 4

3
The plaintiffs have filed substantially the same complaint
in many districts. See, e.g., Peter v. Wojcicki, 2022 WL
1082413 (D. Utah Apr. 11, 2022); Peter v. Wojcicki, 2022 WL
1170426 (N.D. Ohio Apr.20, 2022); Peter v. Wojcicki, 2022 WL
798790 (D.S.C. Mar. 16, 2022); Peter v. Wojcicki, 2022 WL 623145
(D. Id. Mar. 3, 2022); Peter v. Wojcicki, 2022 WL 580507 (E.D.
Pa. Feb. 24, 2022); Peter v. Wojcicki, 2021 WL 5998528 (D.R.I.
Dec. 20, 2021); Peter v. Wojcicki, 2021 WL 5808621 (D. Ha. Dec.
7, 2021). In each case, the court found that the plaintiffs
failed to state an actionable claim and dismissed the case.
Courts also found that the claims were incoherent, nonsensical,
and frivolous, that the claims were not related to the districts
where the complaints were filed, and that the plaintiffs could
not bring claims on behalf of their minor children. For the
reasons stated in the cited cases, the district court should
also find in this case that the plaintiffs have not stated an
actionable claim and should dismiss the case.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district court should
dismiss the complaints (documents 1 and 5) and deny the motion
for in forma pauperis status (document no. 6) as moot.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed.
Case 1:21-cv-00868-JL Document 7 Filed 05/23/22 Page 3 of 4

4
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. Only those issues raised in the objection to this
Report and Recommendation are subject to review in the district
court. See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Natl Ins. Co., 617 F.3d
554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). Any issues not preserved by such
objection(s) are precluded on appeal. See id. Failure to file
any objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the district court's order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-
Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
May 23, 2022
cc: Maria Peter, pro se.
Julika Berger, pro se.
Case 1:21-cv-00868-JL Document 7 Filed 05/23/22 Page 4 of 4