Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02196/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02196-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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,

Plaintiff, CIV. S-06-1582 LKK GGH PS

vs. CIV. S-06-2196 LKK GGH PS

CIV. S-06-2413 LKK GGH PS

CIV. S-06-2509 FCD GGH PS

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

ORDER AND

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding in these actions pro se, has requested leave to proceed in

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. These proceedings were referred to this court by

Local Rule 72-302(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). While the proceedings have not been

related or consolidated under the Local Rules, in the interest of judicial economy, the

undersigned issues this Order and Findings and Recommendations in each of the above-listed

actions. 

For each of the above listed actions, plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making

the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the requests to proceed in forma

pauperis will be granted. 

Case 2:06-cv-02196-LKK -GGH Document 3 Filed 12/04/06 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

Plaintiff’s mostly handwritten complaints in these actions vary from one to three

pages in length, excluding exhibits. Each of the complaints names the same defendant, “United

States Government,” is at least partially illegible and for the most part is unintelligible. In sum,

the complaint in No. CIV.S-06-1582 LKK GGH PS requests the court to grant ownership of the

United States government to plaintiff, and seeks 800 trillion dollars; the complaint in No. CIV.S06-2196 LKK GGH PS sues the United States Government due to the State of California

Medical Board’s refusal to admit “common knowledge” of plaintiff’s incident for the past 26

years, and prays for 100 trillion dollars; the complaint in No. CIV.S-06-2413 LKK GGH PS

proposes a constitutional amendment, and states that this document confirms that the proposal

was received by the United States Senate and the Capitol in Washington; the complaint in No.

CIV.S-06-2509 FCD GGH PS discusses an underground freezer cemetery, requesting only that

the court file a diagram of a freezer coffin, and seeking no relief.

A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only those

cases authorized by the Constitution and by Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co,

511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994). U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1 provides that the

judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court, “and in such inferior Courts

as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Congress therefore confers

jurisdiction upon federal district courts, as limited by U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. See Ankenbrandt

v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 697-99, 112 S. Ct. 2206, 2212 (1992). Lack of subject matter

jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court. See Attorneys Trust v.

Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996).

The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer “federal

question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Statutes which regulate specific subject

matter may also confer federal jurisdiction. See generally, W.W. Schwarzer, A.W. Tashima & J.

Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 2:5. 

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-02196-LKK -GGH Document 3 Filed 12/04/06 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

 Plaintiff has recently been declared a vexatious litigant. Order, filed November 16, 1

2006, in 06-1227 FCD GGH PS. For a summary of all actions filed by plaintiff in the last two

years, see Findings and Recommendations, filed September 29, 2006, in Civ.S. 06-1227 FCD

GGH PS. All of the cases herein were filed prior to November 16, 2006.

3

“The presumption is that a federal court lacks jurisdiction in a particular case until

it has been demonstrated that jurisdiction over the subject matter exists.” 13 Charles A. Wright,

Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3522 at 62 (1984). 

Plaintiff bears the burden of proof for establishing jurisdiction. See, e.g., Sopcak v. Northern

Mountain Helicopter Serv., 52 F.3d 817, 818 (9th Cir.1995); Thornhill Pub. Co. v. General Tel.

& Electronics Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir.1979). Unless a complaint presents a plausible

assertion of a substantial federal right, a federal court does not have jurisdiction. See Bell v.

Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S. Ct. 773, 776 (1945). A federal claim which is so insubstantial as

to be patently without merit cannot serve as the basis for federal jurisdiction. See Hagans v.

Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 587-38, 94 S. Ct. 1372, 1379-80 (1974); Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477,

479 (6th Cir.1999) (“a district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous,

devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.”) 

 A less stringent examination is afforded pro se pleadings, Haines v. Kerner, 404

U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972), but simple reference to federal law

does not create subject-matter jurisdiction. Avitts v. Amoco Prod. Co., 53 F.3d 690, 694 (5th

Cir.1995). Subject-matter jurisdiction is created only by pleading a cause of action that is within

the court’s original jurisdiction. Id.

These mostly incomprehensible and illegible complaints present no basis

whatsoever for federal question jurisdiction. Therefore, the undersigned will recommend that

these actions be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Based on

plaintiff’s history of filing obviously frivolous actions, granting leave to amend would be futile. 

1

Case 2:06-cv-02196-LKK -GGH Document 3 Filed 12/04/06 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

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the above-listed

actions are granted;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file and serve this Order and Findings and

Recommendations in each of the above-listed actions. 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that these matters 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 Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten

(10) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party 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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are

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: 12/4/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Fallonvarious.dis2.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-02196-LKK -GGH Document 3 Filed 12/04/06 Page 4 of 4