Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00416/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00416-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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-06-0416 MCE DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

Defendant.

____________________________/

By order filed May 19, 2006, plaintiff, proceeding in this

action pro se, was directed to show cause in writing within twenty

days why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff was forewarned that the failure to

timely comply with that order would result in a recommendation that

this action be dismissed. The required time has expired and

plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order.

As observed in the order to show cause, plaintiff’s onepage complaint is difficult to decipher, as are the various notes,

diagrams and photocopies attached to the complaint. Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-00416-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 06/21/06 Page 1 of 3
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

apparently takes issue with an advertisement for “[imitation

pharmaceutical] cocaine” which apparently appeared in a 1984 issue of

the magazine High Times. However, in his complaint plaintiff states

that he only “requests the Court, to file this Legal Document, and

asks for nothing in Return.” No basis for federal jurisdiction is

alleged. Indeed, it appears that the court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over this action. 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

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, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action 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)(l). Within twenty days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 

written objections with the court. Such a document should be

Case 2:06-cv-00416-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 06/21/06 Page 2 of 3
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

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 20, 2006.

DAD:lg

Ddadl\orders.prose\fallon0416.f&r.dism

Case 2:06-cv-00416-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 06/21/06 Page 3 of 3