(PS) Maxey v. Chevron Stations Inc., No. 2:2014cv00195 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: RELATED CASE ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/27/2014 GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP, REASSIGNING ACTION to District Judge John A. Mendez and Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without leave to amend. This matter is referred to District Judge John A. Mendez. Any party (Waggoner, D)
Download PDF
(PS) Maxey v. Chevron Stations Inc. Doc. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES C. MAXEY, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, Defendant. 16 17 JAMES C. MAXEY, 18 19 20 21 v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant. JAMES C. MAXEY, 24 25 26 27 No. 2:14-cv-134-JAM-EFB PS Plaintiff, 22 23 No. 2:14-cv-133-JAM-EFB PS No. 2:14-cv-135-KJM-KJN PS Plaintiff, v. JANET SCULLY, Defendant. 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 3 v. 4 5 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Defendant. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, 8 No. 2:14-cv-137-MCE-DAD PS Plaintiff, 9 10 No. 2:14-cv-136-MCE-CKD PS v. GEORGE W. BUSH, 11 Defendant. 12 13 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 16 HALLIBURTON U.S.A., INC., Defendant. 17 18 JAMES C. MAXEY, 19 No. 2:14-cv-139-KJM-KJN PS Plaintiff, 20 21 No. 2:14-cv-138-TLN-AC PS v. ELLY WILLERUP, 22 Defendant. 23 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 No. 2:14-cv-140-TLN-DAD PS v. GERMANY, 5 Defendant. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 No. 2:14-cv-141-GEB-CKD PS CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, 11 Defendant. 12 13 JAMES C. MAXEY, No. 2:14-cv-142-TLN-EFB PS Plaintiff, 14 15 v. 16 DAVID STERN, Defendant. 17 18 JAMES C. MAXEY, 19 Plaintiff, 20 21 No. 2:14-cv-143-TLN-DAD PS v. SACRAMENTO KINGS (N.B.A.) INC., 22 Defendant. 23 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 3 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 No. 2:14-cv-144-JAM-AC PS v. INDIA, 5 Defendant. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 SIEMENS U.S.A., INC., Defendant. 11 12 JAMES C. MAXEY, 13 16 v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION, Defendant. 17 18 JAMES C. MAXEY, 19 22 No. 2:14-cv-147-TLN-KJN PS Plaintiff, 20 21 No. 2:14-cv-146-KJM-DAD PS Plaintiff, 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-145-JAM-CKD PS v. CALIFORNIA STATE FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, Defendant. 23 24 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 4 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 No. 2:14-cv-149-LKK-CKD PS v. RICHARD CHENEY, 5 Defendant. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 EDMUND G. BROWN, Defendant. 11 12 JAMES C. MAXEY, 13 No. 2:14-cv-151-KJM-KJN PS Plaintiff, 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-150-MCE-CKD PS v. KAMALA HARRIS, 16 Defendant. 17 18 JAMES C. MAXEY, No. 2:14-cv-152-GEB-AC PS Plaintiff, 19 20 v. 21 ERIC HOLDER, Defendant. 22 23 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 5 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 3 4 No. 2:14-cv-164-JAM-EFB PS Plaintiff, v. FOX BUSINESS CHANNEL, 5 Defendant. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 v. ENGLAND, Defendant. 11 12 JAMES C. MAXEY, 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-165-TLN-KJN PS No. 2:14-cv-166-KJM-CKD PS Plaintiff, v. SPAIN, 16 Defendant. 17 18 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 19 20 21 No. 2:14-cv-167-MCE-AC PS v. FRANCE, Defendant. 22 23 JAMES C. MAXEY, No. 2:14-cv-168-MCE-AC PS 24 Plaintiff, 25 v. 26 FOX NEWS CHANNEL, 27 Defendant. 28 6 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 No. 2:14-cv-169-MCE-AC PS Plaintiff, 3 v. 4 SACRAMENTO BEE, INC., 5 Defendant. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 RUPPERT MURDOCH, Defendant. 11 12 JAMES C. MAXEY, 13 No. 2:14-cv-171-GEB-DAD PS Plaintiff, 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-170-JAM-CKD PS v. CATHERINE AND SOPHIE BUTCHER, 16 Defendants. 17 18 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 19 v. 20 21 No. 2:14-cv-172-LKK-AC PS SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 22 Defendant. 23 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 7 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 No. 2:14-cv-173-TLN-DAD PS v. ROBERT MUELLER, 5 Defendant. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 JERRY ZANELLI, Defendant. 11 12 No. 2:14-cv-175-TLN-EFB PS JAMES C. MAXEY, 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-174-KJM-DAD PS v. BUZZ OATES, 16 Defendant. 17 18 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 19 v. 20 21 No. 2:14-cv-176-LKK-EFB PS THEODORE GAINES, Defendant. 22 23 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 8 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 5 v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Defendant. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, 8 No. 2:14-cv-178-JAM-CKD PS Plaintiff, 9 10 No. 2:14-cv-177-TLN- DAD PS v. MARK STAWICKI, 11 Defendant. 12 13 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 16 No. 2:14-cv-179-MCE-KJN PS CALIFORNIA NURSES (UNION) ASSOCIATION, 17 Defendant. 18 19 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 20 v. 21 22 No. 2:14-cv-180-MCE-CKD PS QUEEN ELIZABETH, et al., Defendants. 23 24 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 9 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 3 4 No. 2:14-cv-181-MCE-EFB PS Plaintiff, v. VALERIE BUTCHER, 5 Defendant. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 v. DANIEL LUNDGREN, Defendant. 11 12 JAMES C. MAXEY, 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-182-LKK-KJN PS No. 2:14-cv-183-GEB-AC PS Plaintiff, v. JOHN BUTCHER, 16 Defendant. 17 18 JAMES C. MAXEY, No. 2:14-cv-184-KJM-DAD PS Plaintiff, 19 20 v. 21 EMILY F. COX, Defendant. 22 23 JAMES C. MAXEY, No. 2:14-cv-185-TLN-KJN PS 24 Plaintiff, 25 v. 26 CRAIG BUTCHER, 27 Defendant. 28 10 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 3 4 No. 2:14-cv-187-KJM-DAD PS Plaintiff, v. PETER REYNAUD, 5 Defendant. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 v. MARCUS ZIEMER, Defendant. 11 12 JAMES C. MAXEY, 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-188-KJM-EFB PS No. 2:14-cv-189-KJM-AC PS Plaintiff, v. MATHEW BARNES, 16 Defendant. 17 18 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 19 20 21 No. 2:14-cv-190-JAM-DAD PS v. PATRICIA STAINES, Defendant. 22 23 JAMES C. MAXEY, No. 2:14-cv-191-JAM-EFB PS 24 Plaintiff, 25 v. 26 SCREEN ACTORS GUILD ASSN., 27 Defendant. 28 11 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 3 4 No. 2:14-cv-192-MCE-KJN PS Plaintiff, v. ITALY, 5 Defendant. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 v. A.R.C.O. GASOLINE STATIONS, INC., Defendant. 11 12 JAMES C. MAXEY, 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-193-GEB-EFB PS No. 2:14-cv-194-TLN-EFB PS Plaintiff, v. ENTERCOM, INC., 16 Defendant. 17 18 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 19 20 21 No. 2:14-cv-195-JAM-AC PS v. CHEVRON STATIONS, INC., Defendant. 22 23 JAMES C. MAXEY, No. 2:14-cv-197-TLN-CKD PS 24 Plaintiff, 25 v. 26 GARY MESSING, 27 Defendant. 28 12 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 3 4 No. 2:14-cv-198-KJM-CKD PS Plaintiff, v. CRESTVIEW VILLAGE APARTMENTS, 5 Defendant. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 v. BUZZ OATES CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendant. 11 12 JAMES C. MAXEY, 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-199-LKK-DAD PS No. 2:14-cv-200-MCE-AC PS Plaintiff, v. PHILLIP WRIGHT, 16 Defendant. 17 18 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 19 20 21 No. 2:14-cv-201-JAM-AC PS v. JENNIFER SILVA, Defendant. 22 23 JAMES C. MAXEY, No. 2:14-cv-202-TLN-KJN PS 24 Plaintiff, 25 v. 26 ROGER NIELLO, 27 Defendant. 28 13 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 No. 2:14-cv-203-GEB-EFB PS v. KARLA LaCAYO, 5 Defendant. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 RUPINA MANN, Defendant. 11 12 JAMES C. MAXEY, 13 No. 2:14-cv-205-TLN-CKD PS Plaintiff, 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-204-GEB-KJN PS v. CHRISTINA MENDONSA, 16 Defendant. 17 18 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 19 v. 20 21 No. 2:14-cv-207-KJM-DAD PS VALERO GASOLINE STATIONS, INC., Defendant. 22 23 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 14 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 No. 2:14-cv-208-MCE-CKD PS v. RELATED CASE ORDER AND HERITAGE OAKS HOSPITAL, INC., 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. 6 7 Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals that the actions are related within the 8 meaning of E.D. Cal. Local Rule 123. The actions involve similar claims and similar questions of 9 fact and law, and would therefore entail a substantial duplication of labor if heard by different 10 judges. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 123(a). Accordingly, the assignment of the matters to the same judge 11 is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort and is also likely to be convenient for the 12 parties. 13 The parties should be aware that relating the cases under Local Rules 123 merely has the 14 result that both actions are assigned to the same judge and magistrate judge; no consolidation of 15 the actions is affected. 16 A. 17 In each of the above-entitled actions, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 18 plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff’s 19 declarations make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, the 20 requests to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 21 B. 22 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if 23 it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to 24 state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune 25 defendant. 26 ///// 27 ///// Screening of Plaintiff’s Complaints 28 15 1 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 2 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 3 fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 4 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 5 (1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of 6 his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 7 a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 8 relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are 9 true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 10 legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 11 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 12 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations 13 of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), 14 construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the 15 plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy 16 the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) 17 “requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 18 is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds 19 upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing 20 Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 21 The complaints filed in the above-entitled actions are almost identical, containing only 22 minor differences in each case. In each complaint, plaintiff alleges that the action arises from 23 “plaintiff being deprived the most basic rights guaranteed by the California and United States 24 Constitution and statutory law.” Plaintiff alleges that he is a resident of Carmichael, California, 25 and that he is unemployed and disabled due to the actions of the named defendant. Plaintiff 26 alleges that venue is appropriate in this district for each case because “numerous acts, 27 transactions, wrongs, and breaches of contract give rise to violations of civil and criminal law 28 described in this complaint [which] occurred within this county, state and other states.” 16 1 Each complaint also contains a section entitled “Allegations Applicable to All Causes of 2 Action.” This section consists of boilerplate created by plaintiff wherein he leaves blanks to later 3 fill in. This section appears in each complaint as follows: 4 5 6 The plaintiff, James C. Maxey, suffered injury due to the actions of the [space provided for plaintiff to inserts the names of individuals or companies] on, or about [space where plaintiff inserts a date]. The plaintiff’s injuries were caused by [blank space where plaintiff identifies different parties or companies] associates affiliated [another blank space, often filled in with “The Republican Party”]. 7 8 9 10 11 In some of his complaints, plaintiff adds another sentence to the allegation section, which provides, “From September 2001 through the present time, the plaintiff was fraudulently misrepresented as being associated with Osama Bin Laden.” All complaints further allege that “defendants have harassed, intimidated, coerced, 12 blackmailed, physically assaulted, falsely arrested, falsely convicted and falsely imprisoned the 13 plaintiff as part of an illegal conspiracy to suppress his rights under the U.S. Constitution.” Each 14 complaint also requests, among other things, that the court issue an order requiring the City of 15 Sacramento to “delay any planning or construction of any downtown sports arena, until the City 16 Council legally litigates . . . James C. Maxey v. Sacramento Kings (NBA) Inc.” In many of his 17 complaints, plaintiff requests one billion dollars in damages for his injuries. 18 Apart from the sheer number of complaints filed by plaintiff, his complaints name many different 19 defendants who--as best as can be gleaned from the complaints--appear to have nothing to do 20 with plaintiff, including the Country of Germany, Queen Elizabeth II, Dick Cheney, Eric Holder, 21 George Bush, Chevron Gas Stations, and the California Teachers Associations, just to name a 22 few. Plaintiff’s allegations include conclusory and unexplained assertions that the defendants in 23 each case blackmailed, falsely imprisoned, and physically assaulted him. However, the complaint 24 does not contain specific factual allegations showing any particular cause of action as to any 25 particular defendant. Nor does the complaint show how this court would have subject matter 26 jurisdiction over any such claim. Given the failure of the complaint to establish or even suggest a 27 legally cognizable claim, the court finds that all of plaintiff’s above captioned complaints are 28 frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (observing that a court has the 17 1 “power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose 2 factual contentions are clearly baseless,” which includes “claims describing fantastic or 3 delusional scenarios.”). Accordingly, the all of the above-entitled actions must be dismissed 4 without leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 5 (9th Cir. 1987 (While the court ordinarily would permit a pro se plaintiff to amend, leave to 6 amend should not be granted where it appears amendment would be futile). 7 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 8 1. The above-entitled actions are reassigned to Judge Mendez and Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 Brennan for all further proceedings. 2. Plaintiff’s requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed in the above-entitled actions, are granted subject to the recommendation below. 3. The Clerk is directed to file a copy of this order and findings and recommendations in the above-entitled cases. 14 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 15 1. Plaintiff’s complaints filed in the above-entitled cases be dismissed without leave to 16 amend; and 17 2. The Clerk be directed to close the above-entitled cases. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 20 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 21 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 22 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 23 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 24 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 DATED: January 27, 2014. 26 27 28 18