(PS) Maxey v. Johnson, et al, No. 2:2015cv01656 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/3/15 ORDERING that plaintiff's requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed in the above-entitled actions, are granted; Further, it is RECOMM ENDED that the complaints filed in the above-entitled cases be dismissed without leave to amend, and the Clerk be directed to close the above-entitled cases. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF

(PS) Maxey v. Johnson, et al Doc. 8 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. GOVERNOR EDMUND G. BROWN, et al., Defendants. 16 17 JAMES C. MAXEY, 18 19 20 No. 2:14-cv-2206-JAM-EFB PS No. 2:14-cv-2606-JAM-EFB PS Plaintiff, v. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, et al., 21 Defendants. 22 23 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 24 25 26 27 No. 2:14-cv-2872-JAM-EFB PS ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, et al., Defendants. 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 No. 2:14-cv-2996-JAM-EFB PS v. UNITED STATES, et al., 5 Defendants. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 No. 2:15-cv-326-JAM-EFB PS SACTO. CTY. BD. OF SUPERVISORS, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 16 No. 2:15-cv-641-JAM-EFB PS UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, BENJAMIN WAGNER, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 20 v. 21 22 No. 2:15-cv-950-JAM-EFB PS ROBERT M. MAXEY, et al., Defendants. 23 24 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 5 v. U.S. SENATOR BARBARA BOXER, et al. Defendants. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, 8 11 v. PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON, et al., Defendants. 12 13 JAMES C. MAXEY, 14 No. 2:15-cv-1019-JAM-EFB PS Plaintiff, 15 16 No. 2:15-cv-1018-JAM-EFB PS Plaintiff, 9 10 No. 2:15-cv-1006-JAM-EFB PS v. EDMUND G. BROWN, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 20 v. 21 22 No. 2:15-cv-1070-JAM-EFB PS KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL, et al., 23 Defendants. 24 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 3 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 No. 2:15-cv-1178-JAM-EFB PS v. UNITED STATES, et al., 5 Defendants. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.., Defendants. 11 12 JAMES C. MAXEY, 13 No. 2:15-cv-1349-JAM-EFB PS Plaintiff, 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-1243-JAM-EFB PS v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 19 v. 20 21 No. 2:15-cv-1379-JAM-EFB PS NAT. REPUBLICAN PARTY, et al., Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 ///// ///// ///// ///// 28 4 1 JAMES C. MAXEY, 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 No. 2:15-cv-1469-JAM-EFB PS v. UNITED KINGDOM, et al., 5 Defendants. 6 7 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. 11 12 JAMES C. MAXEY, 13 No. 2:15-cv-1508-JAM-EFB PS Plaintiff, 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-1507-JAM-EFB PS v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 JAMES C. MAXEY, Plaintiff, 19 v. 20 21 No. 2:15-cv-1656-JAM-EFB PS MAYOR KEVIN JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. 22 23 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 5 1 In each of the above-entitled actions, with the exception of one case,1 plaintiff seeks leave 2 to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.2 His declarations make the showing 3 required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, the requests to proceed in forma 4 pauperis are granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 5 Determining that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required 6 inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines that 7 the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim 8 on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. As 9 discussed below, plaintiff’s complaints fail to state a claim and must therefore be dismissed. 10 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 11 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, must be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 12 fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 13 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 14 (1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of 15 his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 16 a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 17 relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are 18 true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 19 legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 20 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 21 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations 22 of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), 23 construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the 24 1 25 26 27 28 In Maxey v. Johnson, 2:15-cv-1656-JAM-EFB PS, plaintiff originally filed his complaint in the Sacramento County Superior Court, and the United States subsequently removed the action to this court. Accordingly, no application to proceed in forma pauperis was filed in that action. 2 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 6 1 plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy 2 the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) 3 requires a complaint to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 4 is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds 5 upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 6 Additionally, a federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only 7 those cases authorized by the Constitution and by Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 8 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, 9 confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction 10 requires that the complaint (1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2) allege a 11 “case or controversy” within the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or (3) be 12 authorized by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers federal 13 jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke the court’s diversity 14 jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically allege the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that the 15 matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American World 16 Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). A case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction 17 of the federal courts unless demonstrated otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-78. Lack of 18 subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court. Attorneys 19 Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). 20 Over the course of two years, plaintiff has filed over one hundred and seventy civil actions 21 in this district, the vast majority of which were summarily dismissed as frivolous or for failure to 22 state a viable claim. As with his other complaints, the operative complaints in the above-entitled 23 actions contain allegations that are plainly frivolous because they lack even “an arguable basis 24 either in law or in fact,” and appear “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional.” Neitzke v. Williams, 25 490 U.S. 319, 325, 328 (1989). Although the allegations in each complaint vary, each action is 26 based on plaintiff’s allegations concerning a vast government conspiracy involving, inter alia, the 27 implantation of a microchip in plaintiff’s head. See, e.g., Maxey v. Brown, 2:14-cv-2206-JAM- 28 EFB PS, ECF No. 3 at 2 (“Under the guise of national security and scientific progress, the Obama 7 1 and Brown administration is conducting illegal and unwarranted (24 hours a day) government 2 surveillance of Plaintiff by way of satellite microchip implant technology criminally and 3 surgically inserted (as an infant) into Plaintiff’s brain, eyes and body by physicians with the 4 United States Air Force.”); Maxey v. Johnson, 2:15-cv-1656-JAM-EFB PS, ECF No. 1-1 at 5 5 (“The Defendants and others have financially exploited, targeted and victimized the Plaintiff 6 because of an illegal agreement between the United States and United Kingdom to surgically 7 insert ‘GPS satellite microchip implant technology’ into the Plaintiff’s brain (as an infant).”). In 8 light of the fanciful, indeed, delusional allegations of each complaint the court finds that the 9 above-entitled actions are patently frivolous and must be dismissed without leave to amend. See 10 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Under Ninth Circuit case law, district 11 courts are only required to grant leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are 12 not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”); see also Doe v. United 13 States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if 14 no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not be 15 cured by the allegation of other facts.”). 16 17 18 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed in the above-entitled actions, are granted. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the complaints filed in the above-entitled cases be 19 dismissed without leave to amend, and the Clerk be directed to close the above-entitled cases. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 22 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 23 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 24 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 25 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 26 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 27 DATED: December 3, 2015. 28 8

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.