(PS) Fallon v. United States Government, No. 2:2006cv01492 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2006)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/07/06: ORDERED that pltf's 2 MOTIONS to PROCEED IFP are GRANTED; pltf is forewarned that the continued filing of obviously frivolous actions over which the court lacks subject matter jurisidction may result in the imposition of pre-filing sanction and the Clerk is directed to file and serve this Order in each case listed; RECOMMENDING that these matters be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisidction. Objections due 10 days after being served with these F&Rs. (Kirkpatrick, S)

Download PDF

(PS) Fallon v. United States Government Doc. 3 Case 2:06-cv-01492-MCE-DAD Document 3 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ANTHONY FALLON, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, 15 16 No. No. No. No. No. CIV.S-06-1030 CIV.S-06-1292 CIV.S-06-1402 CIV.S-06-1492 CIV.S-06-1494 LKK GEB GEB MCE DFL DAD DAD DAD DAD DAD PS PS PS PS PS ORDER AND Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ____________________________/ 17 Plaintiff, proceeding in these actions pro se, has 18 requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915. 20 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 21 proceedings have not been related or consolidated under the Local 22 Rules, in the interest of judicial economy, the undersigned issues 23 this Order and Findings and Recommendations in each of the above- 24 listed actions. 25 26 These proceedings were referred to this court by Local Rule While the For each of the above-listed actions, plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:06-cv-01492-MCE-DAD 1 § 1915(a)(1). 2 Document 3 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 2 of 4 will be granted. 3 Accordingly, the requests to proceed in forma pauperis Plaintiff’s handwritten complaints in these actions vary 4 from one to three pages in length, excluding exhibits. 5 complaints names the same defendant, “United States Government,” is 6 at least partially illegible and for the most part is unintelligible. 7 In sum, the complaint in No. CIV.S-06-1030 LKK DAD PS refers to Major 8 League Baseball, the use of anesthetics in dentistry and prays for 9 $200 billion in damages; the complaint in No. CIV.S-06-1292 GEB DAD Each of the 10 PS appears to be some sort of attestation by plaintiff that he “will 11 not touch ... any woman” in Tuolumne County and prays for $5 12 trillion; the complaint in No. CIV.S-06-1402 GEB DAD PS apparently 13 seeks the installation of an “underground cemetery system” in Death 14 Valley, California; the complaint in No. CIV.S-06-1492 MCE DAD PS 15 similarly seeks the installation of an “underground freezer cemetery 16 system” at the San Luis Reservoir; and, finally, the complaint in No. 17 CIV.S-06-1494 DFL DAD PS seeks $1 billion in damages arising from 18 plaintiff’s interaction with a “county attorney” during unspecified 19 state court proceedings. 20 “plaintiff has a number of State of California Superior Court cases 21 pending.” 22 23 According to this most recent complaint, In any event, just like the other complaints plaintiff has filed in this court over the last year or so,1 no basis for federal 24 25 26 1 These other complaints were filed in No. CIV.S-05-0509 MCE DAD PS; No. CIV.S-05-1431 LKK DAD PS; No. CIV.S-05-2132 MCE DAD PS; No. CIV.S-05-2228 MCE DAD PS; and No. CIV.S-06-0416 MCE DAD PS. 2 Case 2:06-cv-01492-MCE-DAD Document 3 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 3 of 4 1 jurisdiction is alleged in these most recent complaints. 2 undersigned finds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 3 over these actions. 4 that a claim is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction where 5 it is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” and “so patently without 6 merit”); Hagans v. Levine, 415 U.S. 528, 543 (stating that a claim 7 may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where it is “so 8 insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this 9 Court or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a Indeed, the See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (recognizing 10 federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the District Court”). 11 See also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 (9th Cir. 1984)(“A 12 paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer federal 13 subject matter jurisdiction and may be dismissed sua sponte before 14 service of process.”)(citations omitted). 15 undersigned will recommend that these actions be dismissed with 16 prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 17 plaintiff’s history of filing obviously frivolous actions, granting 18 leave to amend would be futile. Accordingly, the 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Based on 21 Plaintiff's requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the above-listed actions are granted; 22 2. Plaintiff is forewarned that the continued filing of 23 obviously frivolous actions over which this court lacks subject 24 matter jurisdiction may result in the imposition of pre-filing 25 sanctions; and 26 ///// 3 Case 2:06-cv-01492-MCE-DAD 1 3. Document 3 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 4 of 4 The Clerk of the Court is directed to file and serve 2 this Order and Findings and Recommendations in each of the above- 3 listed actions. 4 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that these matters be dismissed 5 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 6 12(h)(3). 7 See Fed. R. Civ. P. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the 8 United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the 9 provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten (10) days after 10 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may 11 file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all 12 parties. 13 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 14 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 15 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 16 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 DATED: July 7, 2006. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 18 19 20 21 DAD:th Ddadl\orders.prose\fallon.various.ifp.f&r 22 23 24 25 26 4 Plaintiff is See Martinez

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.