Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02194/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02194-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID ANTHONY FALLON, No. CIV.S-06-2194 FCD DAD PS

No. CIV.S-06-2401 DFL DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER AND

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

__________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding in these actions pro se, has

requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. These proceedings were referred to this court by Local Rule

72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). While the

proceedings have not been related or consolidated pursuant to the

Local Rules, in the interest of judicial economy, the undersigned

issues this Order and Findings and Recommendations in each of the

above-listed actions.

///// 

Case 2:06-cv-02194-FCD-DAD Document 3 Filed 12/19/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

In each action, plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making

the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the

requests to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff’s complaints name the same defendant, “United

States Government.” The complaint in No. CIV.S-06-2194 FCD DAD PS

challenges “strange actions” at Tuolumne General Hospital and alleges

that plaintiff “believed that his Regular Doctor, had been killed, by

the New Doctor, who was going to try to kill [plaintiff].” (CIV.S06-2194 Compl. at 1.) The complaint prays for “One Hundred Trillion

Dollars” in damages. (Id. at 2.) The complaint in No. CIV.S-06-2401

DFL DAD PS asks the court to take notice of a constitutional

amendment proposed by plaintiff to Congress. (CIV.S-06-2401, Compl.

at 1.) That complaint asks that the court “File this Legal

Docum[ent]ation, and requests, or asks, to rec[ei]ve, nothing in

return.” (Id. at 2.)

As is the case with numerous other complaints plaintiff has

filed in this court over approximately the last two years, no basis

for federal jurisdiction is alleged in the recently filed complaints. 

The undersigned finds that the court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over these actions. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682

(recognizing that a claim is subject to dismissal for want of

jurisdiction where it is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” and “so

patently without merit”); Hagans v. Levine, 415 U.S. 528, 543

(stating that a claim may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where

it is “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions

of this Court or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to

Case 2:06-cv-02194-FCD-DAD Document 3 Filed 12/19/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the District

Court”). See also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 (9th Cir.

1984)(“A paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer

federal subject matter jurisdiction and may be dismissed sua sponte

before service of process.”)(citations omitted). Accordingly, the

undersigned will recommend that these actions be dismissed with

prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Based on

plaintiff’s history of filing obviously frivolous actions, granting

leave to amend would be futile. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's requests for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis in the above-listed actions are granted; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file and serve

this Order and Findings and Recommendations in each of the abovelisted actions. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that these matters be dismissed

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten (10) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all

parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

Case 2:06-cv-02194-FCD-DAD Document 3 Filed 12/19/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 18, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\fallon.various.ifp.f&r.3

Case 2:06-cv-02194-FCD-DAD Document 3 Filed 12/19/06 Page 4 of 4