Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-mc-00092/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-mc-00092-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES C. MAXEY,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES, et al.,

 Defendants.

2:16-mc-00092-LJO

ORDER ON PRE-FILING REQUEST

Plaintiff’s lodged complaint is subject to the pre-filing review order in case number 2:15-cv1656-JAM-EFB, Doc. 7, which declared Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and provides that he is not 

permitted to file any new litigation in this Court without first obtaining leave to do so from the 

undersigned, as Chief Judge of this District. Id. at 2. Leave will be permitted only “if it appears that the 

litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay.” Id. (citing Cal. Civ. 

Proc. Code § 391.7(b)). 

Plaintiff’s lodged complaint does not meet that requirement. The complaint alleges, among other 

things, that numerous government officials have conspired to implant a subcutaneous microchip in 

Plaintiff and to murder him. Lodged Complaint at 1. The Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to file 

the lodged complaint because it has no merit. District courts have the authority to dismiss complaints 

founded on “wholly fanciful” factual allegations for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Franklin v. 

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984). Strikingly similar claims have been raised by Plaintiff and 

Case 2:16-mc-00092-LJO Document 2 Filed 05/11/16 Page 1 of 2
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

2

rejected on the merits in prior cases. See Maxey v. Brown, No. 2:14-CV-02507 MCE AC, 2015 WL 

925792, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:14-CV-2507 MCE, 

2015 WL 1469750 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2015). 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s lodged complaint shall not be filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:16-mc-00092-LJO Document 2 Filed 05/11/16 Page 2 of 2