Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01664/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01664-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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-06-1601 GEB DAD PS

No. CIV.S-06-1664 LKK DAD PS

Plaintiff, No. CIV.S-06-1680 GEB DAD PS

No. CIV.S-06-1753 GEB DAD PS

v. No. CIV.S-06-1789 MCE DAD PS

No. CIV.S-06-1879 GEB DAD PS

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, No. CIV.S-06-1880 FCD DAD PS

No. CIV.S-06-1926 WBS DAD PS

Defendant. No. CIV.S-06-1995 GEB DAD PS

ORDER AND

__________________________/ 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(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). While the

proceedings have not been related or consolidated pursuant to 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. 

Case 2:06-cv-01664-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 5
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 In all other respects this complaint is indecipherable. 1

2

In 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.

Plaintiff’s complaints in these actions vary from one to

three pages in length, excluding exhibits. Most of the complaints

are handwritten and only partially legible. Each of the complaints

names the same defendant, “United States Government,” and are for the

most part unintelligible. In sum, the complaint in No. CIV.S-06-1664

LKK DAD PS appears to challenge the United States Supreme Court’s

rejection of mail sent to the court by plaintiff and prays for “five

hundred trillion dollars”; the complaint in No. CIV.S-06-1680 GEB DAD

PS objects to the construction of a courthouse in San Mateo County

and seeks “one hundred trillion dollars”; the complaint in No. CIV.S06-1753 GEB DAD PS apparently seeks one million dollars for property

damage resulting from “a steel rod ... found in the engine pan of two

cars owned by plaintiff”; the complaint in No. CIV.S-06-1789 MCE DAD

PS asks that United States Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows and an

unidentified Assistant United States Attorney be directed to appear

on plaintiff’s behalf at certain court proceedings in San Mateo

County; and the complaint in No. CIV.S-06-1995 GEB DAD PS seeks “five

hundred trillion dollars” in connection with the “tooth loss” of

teenagers. Finally, the complaints in No. CIV.S-06-1601 GEB DAD PS, 1

No. CIV.S-06-1879 GEB DAD PS, No. CIV.S-06-1880 FCD DAD PS and No.

Case 2:06-cv-01664-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 5
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

 These other complaints were filed in No. CIV.S-05-0509 MCE DAD 2

PS; No. CIV.S-05-1431 LKK DAD PS; No. CIV.S-05-2132 MCE DAD PS; No.

CIV.S-05-2228 MCE DAD PS; No. CIV.S-06-0416 MCE DAD PS; No. CIV.S-06-

1030 LKK DAD PS; No. CIV.S-06-1292 GEB DAD PS; No. CIV.S-06-1402 GEB

DAD PS; No. CIV.S-06-1492 MCE DAD PS; and No. CIV.S-06-1494 DFL DAD

PS.

3

CIV.S-06-1926 WBS DAD PS each concern the alleged construction of an

underground freezer cemetery system by the United States government. 

Those complaints seek no specific relief other than the filing of

plaintiff’s complaints, which would purportedly create a record of

the alleged government-constructed cemetery system.

In any event, as is the case with other complaints

plaintiff has filed in this court over approximately the last

eighteen months, no basis for federal jurisdiction is alleged in the 2

recently filed complaints. The undersigned finds that the court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these actions. 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, the undersigned will recommend that these actions be

Case 2:06-cv-01664-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 10/03/06 Page 3 of 5
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

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. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

pauperis in the above-listed actions are granted;

2. Plaintiff again is forewarned that the continued filing

of obviously frivolous actions over which this court lacks subject

matter jurisdiction may result in the imposition of pre-filing

sanctions; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file and serve

this Order and Findings and Recommendations in each of the abovelisted actions. 

IT IS HEREBY 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 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 2:06-cv-01664-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 10/03/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 2, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\fallon.various.ifp.f&r.2

Case 2:06-cv-01664-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 10/03/06 Page 5 of 5