Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02122/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02122-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
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

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD W. FORBES, No. CIV.S-05-2122 GEB DAD PS 

Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

v.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

__________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by

filing a document styled as a “Notice of Removal Jurisdiction.” That

notice does not refer to a state court action, however. Rather, the

notice appears to concern a traffic citation issued to plaintiff by

the California Highway Patrol for driving with expired vehicle

registration and failing to have proof of insurance.

According to the complaint, plaintiff is a “Brigadier

General U.S.A.F., Martial Law Commander.” The complaint alleges:

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02122-GEB-DAD Document 3 Filed 10/26/05 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

The Martial Law Command was initiated in the

Tahoe National Forest, a United States territory,

in March, 2000, due to discovery of silent

chemical, biological and radiological invasion

through laser systems, by American citizens

acting in agreement with a specific foreign

nation to infuse chemical and biological agents

on a nuclear carrier, atmospherically into

persons, structures, infrastructure utilities,

and vehicles; flora and fauna, inside the borders

of the United States.

(Compl. at 2.) Liberally construed, the complaint alleges that

plaintiff failed to register his vehicle because:

The license plates of the State of California and

the corresponding aluminized reflective

registration stickers and numerical sequences are

used by both the U.S. citizen terrorist and a

specific foreign nation in conspiracy to impose

data and nuclear computer circuitry for the

purpose of espionage against the United States;

imposition of atmospheric and ground wave carrier

borne chemicals, poisons, biological animals,

personal, business and government computer access

and modification....

(Compl. at 7.) The complaint contains no discernible prayer for

relief.

The court has liberally construed plaintiff’s pro se

complaint. See Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir.

1985)(en banc). However, despite that liberal construction the court

finds that plaintiff’s complaint has no arguable basis either in law

or in fact, is wholly insubstantial, implausible and therefore

subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See

Hagans v. Levine, 415 U.S. 528, 543 (1974) (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

Case 2:05-cv-02122-GEB-DAD Document 3 Filed 10/26/05 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

1 The undersigned has considered whether leave to amend might

be appropriate. However, the nature of the allegations of

plaintiff’s complaint demonstrate that leave to amend would be

futile. Schmier v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit, 279 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 2002).

3

jurisdiction of the District Court”); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682

(1946) (recognizing that a claim is subject to dismissal for want of

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

patently without merit”); 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.”).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s

complaint be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.1

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 2:05-cv-02122-GEB-DAD Document 3 Filed 10/26/05 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: October 26, 2005.

DAD:th

ddad1\orders.prose\forbes2122.f&r

Case 2:05-cv-02122-GEB-DAD Document 3 Filed 10/26/05 Page 4 of 4