Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00416/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00416-0/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. 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 submitted an affidavit making the showing

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

proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff’s one-page complaint is difficult to decipher, as

are the various notes, diagrams and photocopies attached to the

complaint. Plaintiff apparently takes issue with an advertisement

Case 2:06-cv-00416-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 05/19/06 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

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 ORDERED that:

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

pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within twenty

days of the date that 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

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00416-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 05/19/06 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

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: May 18, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\fallon0416.ifp.osc

Case 2:06-cv-00416-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 05/19/06 Page 3 of 3