(PS) Maxey v. Blatter, No. 2:2014cv00299 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: RELATED CASE ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/3/2014 ORDERING this matter is REASSIGNED to District Judge John A. Mendez and Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan for all further proceedings; 2 M otion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED; RECOMMENDING that 1 Complaint filed by James C. Maxey be dismissed without leave to amend and that Clerk be directed to close this case. Matter referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Any party may file Objections to F&R within 14 days after being served; Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order.(Waggoner, D)
Download PDF
(PS) Maxey v. Blatter 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 No. 2:14-cv-269-TLN-CKD PS Plaintiff, v. MITCHELL McCONNELL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 18 19 20 v. EARLE ANDERSON, Defendant. 21 22 JAMES C. MAXEY, 23 24 25 26 27 No. 2:14-cv-271-TLN-CKD PS No. 2:14-cv-272-KJM-CKD PS Plaintiff, v. SONOMA COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY, Defendant. 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 5 v. AMADOR COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY, Defendant. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, 8 11 v. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY, Defendant. 12 13 JAMES C. MAXEY, 14 17 v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY, Defendant. 18 19 JAMES C. MAXEY, 20 No. 2:14-cv-278-GEB-DAD PS Plaintiff, 21 22 No. 2:14-cv-277-TLN-DAD PS Plaintiff, 15 16 No. 2:14-cv-275-MCE-KJN PS Plaintiff, 9 10 No. 2:14-cv-274-LKK-CKD PS v. JOHN BOEHNER, 23 Defendant. 24 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 5 v. YUBA COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY, Defendant. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, 8 11 v. PLACER COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY, Defendant. 12 13 JAMES C. MAXEY, 14 No. 2:14-cv-284-KJM-AC PS Plaintiff, 15 16 No. 2:14-cv-282-KJM-KJN PS Plaintiff, 9 10 No. 2:14-cv-281-TLN-KJN PS v. MICHELLE MAXEY, 17 Defendant. 18 19 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 20 v. 21 22 No. 2:14-cv-288-TLN-DAD PS SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 23 Defendant. 24 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 3 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 No. 2:14-cv-289-KJM-EFB PS v. JOHN ASHCROFT, 5 Defendant. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 No. 2:14-cv-290-LKK-AC PS SACRAMENTO METRO FIRE DEPARTMENT, 11 Defendant. 12 13 JAMES C. MAXEY, No. 2:14-cv-291-LKK-KJN PS Plaintiff, 14 15 v. 16 MITT ROMNEY, Defendant. 17 18 JAMES C. MAXEY, 19 Plaintiff, 20 21 No. 2:14-cv-292-MCE-EFB PS v. JOHN McCAIN, 22 Defendant. 23 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 4 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 5 v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Defendant. 6 7 No. 2:14-cv-293 GEB-KJN PS JAMES C. MAXEY, 8 No. 2:14-cv-294-TLN-DAD PS Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 JAMES COMEY, 11 Defendant. 12 13 JAMES C. MAXEY, 14 Plaintiff, 15 16 17 v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY, Defendant. 18 19 JAMES C. MAXEY, 20 23 No. 2:14-cv-296-JAM-CKD PS Plaintiff, 21 22 No. 2:14-cv-295-TLN-AC PS v. CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendant. 24 25 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 5 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 5 v. MURDOCH, WALRATH AND HOLMES, INC., Defendant. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, 8 No. 2:14-cv-298-KJM-DAD PS Plaintiff, 9 10 No. 2:14-cv-297-TLN-CKD PS v. MICHAEL PLATINI, 11 Defendant. 12 13 JAMES C. MAXEY, No. 2:14-cv-299-JAM-AC PS Plaintiff, 14 15 v. 16 SEPP BLATTER, Defendant. 17 18 JAMES C. MAXEY, 19 Plaintiff, 20 21 No. 2:14-cv-300-LKK-AC PS v. COSTCO, INC., 22 Defendant. 23 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 6 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 5 v. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL, INC., Defendant. 6 7 No. 2:14-cv-301-MCE-AC PS JAMES C. MAXEY, 8 No. 2:14-cv-302-MCE-DAD PS Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER, 11 Defendant. 12 13 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 16 CY CURNIN, Defendant. 17 18 JAMES C. MAXEY, 19 22 No. 2:14-cv-307-GEB-DAD PS Plaintiff, 20 21 No. 2:14-cv-303-JAM-KJN PS v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Defendant. 23 24 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 7 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 No. 2:14-cv-313-MCE-DAD PS v. BARACK OBAMA, 5 Defendant. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 No. 2:14-cv-314-TLN-EFB PS RELATED CASE ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS HILLARY CLINTON, Defendant. 11 12 13 Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals that the actions are related within the 14 meaning of E.D. Cal. Local Rule 123. The actions involve similar claims and similar questions of 15 fact and law, and would therefore entail a substantial duplication of labor if heard by different 16 judges. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 123(a). Accordingly, the assignment of the matters to the same judge 17 is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort and is also likely to be convenient for the 18 parties. 19 Pursuant to the Related Case Order issued on January 27, 2014, in the lead case of Maxey 20 v. Cal. State Bar Assn., No. 2:14-cv-133-JAM-EFB PS, relating 61 other actions, and the Related 21 Case Order issued on January 28, 2014, in the lead case of Maxey v. Cal. Medical Bd., No. 2:14- 22 cv-238-JAM-EFB PS, relating an additional 8 cases, these above-captioned actions will be 23 reassigned to Judge Mendez and Magistrate Judge Brennan. The parties should be aware that 24 relating the cases under Local Rules 123 merely has the result that both actions are assigned to the 25 same judge; no consolidation of the actions is affected. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 8 1 A. 2 In each of the above-entitled actions, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 3 plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff’s 4 declarations make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, the 5 requests to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 6 B. 7 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if 8 it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to 9 state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune 10 11 Screening of Plaintiff’s Complaints defendant. Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 12 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 13 fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 14 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 15 (1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of 16 his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 17 a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 18 relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are 19 true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 20 legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 21 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 22 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations 23 of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), 24 construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the 25 plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy 26 the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) 27 “requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 28 is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds 9 1 upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing 2 Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 3 As with the other 61 actions addressed in the order and recommendation filed in 2:14-cv- 4 153-JAM-EFB PS on January 27, 2014, and the 8 actions addressed in the January 28, 2014 order 5 and recommendation, the complaints filed in the above-entitled actions are frivolous. The 6 complaints are almost identical, containing only minor differences in each case. In each 7 complaint, plaintiff alleges that the action arises from “plaintiff being deprived the most basic 8 rights guaranteed by the California and United States Constitution and statutory law.” Plaintiff 9 alleges that he is a resident of Carmichael, California, and that he is unemployed and disabled due 10 to the actions of the named defendant. Plaintiff alleges that venue is appropriate in this district 11 for each case because “numerous acts, transactions, wrongs, and breaches of contract give rise to 12 violations of civil and criminal law described in this complaint [which] occurred within this 13 county, state and other states.” 14 Each complaint also contains a section entitled “Allegations Applicable to All Causes of 15 Action.” This section consists of boilerplate created by plaintiff wherein he leaves blanks to later 16 fill in. This section appears in each complaint as follows: 17 18 19 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]. 20 21 In some of his complaints, plaintiff adds another sentence to the allegation section, which 22 provides, “From September 2001 through the present time, the plaintiff was fraudulently 23 misrepresented as being associated with Osama Bin Laden.” 24 With the exception of two of the complaints, all complaints further allege that “defendants 25 have harassed, intimidated, coerced, blackmailed, physically assaulted, falsely arrested, falsely 26 convicted and falsely imprisoned the plaintiff as part of an illegal conspiracy to suppress his 27 rights under the U.S. Constitution.” These complaints also request, among other things, that the 28 court issue an order requiring the City of Sacramento to “delay any planning or construction of 10 1 any downtown sports arena, until the City Council legally litigates . . . James C. Maxey v. 2 Sacramento Kings (NBA) Inc.” In many of his complaints, plaintiff requests one billion dollars 3 in damages for his injuries. 4 In two of the above captioned cases, plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus. See Maxey v. 5 Sacramento Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors., No. 2:14-cv-288-TLN-DAD PS; Maxey v. Sacramento 6 Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors., No. 2:14-cv-307-GEB-DAD PS. In these two actions plaintiff requests 7 that the court issue an order directing the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors to 8 immediately terminate Sacramento County District Attorney Janet Scully’s employment. 9 Plaintiff contends that Janet Scully “has harassed, intimidated, coerced, blackmailed, physically 10 assaulted, falsely arrested, falsely convicted, and falsely imprisoned” plaintiff. He further 11 contents that Janet Scully and the United States Department of Homeland Security illegally 12 classified plaintiff “as being ‘Osama Bin Laden’ under the United States ‘Patriot Act.’” 13 Plaintiff has now filed 98 complaints that provide no clues as to what cause of action is 14 being asserted against what defendant. Apart from the sheer number of complaints filed by 15 plaintiff, his complaints name many different defendants who--as best as can be gleaned from the 16 complaints--appear to have nothing to do with plaintiff, including the Republican parties of 17 several northern California counties, Speaker John Boehner, Senator Mitch McConnell, the 18 Minority Leader of the Senate, just to name a few. Plaintiff’s allegations include conclusory and 19 unexplained assertions that the defendants in each case blackmailed, falsely imprisoned, and 20 physically assaulted him. However, the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations 21 showing any particular cause of action as to any particular defendant. Nor does the complaint 22 show how this court would have subject matter jurisdiction over any such claim. Given the 23 failure of the complaint to establish or even suggest a legally cognizable claim, the court finds 24 that all of plaintiff’s above captioned complaints are frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 25 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (observing that a court has the “power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s 26 factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless,” 27 which includes “claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios.”). Accordingly, all of the 28 above-entitled actions must be dismissed without leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 11 1 1915(e)(2). Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987 (While the court ordinarily 2 would permit a pro se plaintiff to amend, leave to amend should not be granted where it appears 3 amendment would be futile). 4 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 5 1. The above-entitled actions are reassigned to Judge Mendez and Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 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. 11 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 12 1. Plaintiff’s complaints filed in the above-entitled cases be dismissed without leave to 13 amend; and 14 2. The Clerk be directed to close the above-entitled cases. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 17 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 18 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 19 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 20 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 21 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 DATED: February 3, 2014. 23 24 25 26 27 28 12