Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02228/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02228-0/pdf.json

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

---

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-05-2228 MCE DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER AND

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendant.

____________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested

leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-

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

Plaintiff has not submitted the required affidavit

regarding his alleged inability to pay fees, plaintiff having

provided only a brief typed statement in this regard. Accordingly,

the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied without

prejudice.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02228-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 03/15/06 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

Plaintiff’s brief, difficult to decipher complaint seeks to

recover damages from the federal government in the amount of $2

billion as a result of being arrested by various unidentified private

citizens impersonating law enforcement officers. According to the

complaint “[t]his entire ‘Mob’ was believed to be acting [on] behalf

of the South San Francisco Police Department, who committed a crime

against myself, in 1980 ....” (Compl. at 1-2.) No basis for federal

jurisdiction is alleged. Indeed, it appears that the court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. 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 ORDERED that:

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

pauperis is denied without prejudice to submitting an amended

application. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a

new application to proceed without prepayment of fees and affidavit.

If plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, he shall properly complete

Case 2:05-cv-02228-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 03/15/06 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

and file an amended in forma pauperis application, or pay the

appropriate statutory filing fee, within twenty days of the date this

order is filed;

2. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within twenty

days of the date this order is filed why this matter should not be

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

P. 12(h)(3); and

3. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to timely

comply with the terms of this order will result in a recommendation

that this action be dismissed.

DATED: March 14, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\fallon2228.ifp.osc

Case 2:05-cv-02228-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 03/15/06 Page 3 of 3