Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01243/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01243-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES C. MAXEY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and 

DOES 1-99,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-01243-GEB-EFB

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION

FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

On June 11, 2015, Plaintiff, proceeding in propria 

persona, filed an ex parte motion for injunctive relief and a 

temporary restraining order (“TRO”), in which he seeks his 

“placement . . . in ‘protective custody,’” and an order 

“compelling the United States to immediately suspend the 

government’s state-sponsored torture . . . surveillance and 

Remote Neural Monitoring . . . involuntary human experimentation, 

human trafficking, slavery, and forced labor.” (Pl.’s Mot. 13:6, 

13:16-14:16, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also seeks in his motion an 

order of “mandatory forfeiture of public office, imprisonment, 

and fines” against “several public employees such as President 

Barak Obama, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Senator Barbara Boxer, 

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Representative[] Doris Matsui, 

Representative Ami Bera, State Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, 

Former District Attorney Jan Scully, District Attorney Ann Marie 

Case 2:15-cv-01243-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 06/11/15 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

27

28

2

Schubert and Sheriff Scott Jones.” (Id. at 13:8-13.) This 

requested relief is based on Plaintiff’s following allegations:

The United States has fraudulently concealed 

the fact that as an infant, physicians with 

the United States Air Force (father’s 

employer) surgically inserted “satellite 

microchip implant technology” into the 

Plaintiff’s brain, eyes and body. Under 

anesthesia, an incision was made in the 

Plaintiff’s scalp and a hole drilled in his 

skull. The microchip implant device was 

placed on the surface of the brain. From on, 

or about January 21, 1978, through the 

present time, the United States and State of 

California has subjected the Plaintiff to 

state-sponsored torture, electronic shock 

treatment, remote-delivered radiation and 

electronic signals laser beamed into the 

Plaintiff’s head, body, arms, legs and 

groin. . . .

. . . . 

The United States has conspired with 

county, state and federal law enforcement 

agencies [to] impose[] (24 hour a day) Remote 

Neural Monitoring, surveillance and 

observation of the Plaintiff’s belongings, 

person and surroundings through the use of 

electronic listening devices, video 

recording, special imaging and every other 

means of tracking and monitoring the 

Plaintiff’s every movements inside and 

outside of his residence.

. . . . 

This Court failed to protect the 

Plaintiff from the accused Defendants’ 

community-wide “witch hunt,” death threats, 

physical violence, obstruction of justice, 

false arrest, false imprisonment, false 

conviction, assault with a deadly weapon, 

fraudulent concealment, public slander, 

public defamation of character, 

electromagnetic torture, unwarranted 

surveillance, harassment, coercion, 

intimidation and physical retaliation. . . .

. . . Plaintiff’s (estranged) family 

members . . . have secretly met with the 

Plaintiff’s employers, friends and associates 

to defame, slander and fraudulently 

Case 2:15-cv-01243-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 06/11/15 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

27

28

3

misrepresent the Plaintiff . . . . In each 

case, the Plaintiff was illegally terminated 

from his employment. 

(Id. at 9:12-22, 10:21-26, 12:1-26 (paragraph numbering 

omitted).)

To obtain injunctive relief, Plaintiff must 

demonstrate, inter alia, that “he is likely to succeed on the 

merits of his claim[s].” Fyock v. Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991, 995 

(9th Cir. 2015). Here, Plaintiff cannot do so based on such 

inherently implausible and conclusory allegations. See Loop AI 

Labs, Inc. v. Gatti, No. 15-cv-00798-HSG, 2015 WL 1090180, at *3 

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2015) (“Conclusory allegations alone are not 

sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the 

merits.”); accord Solomon v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, No. 2:12-

00209 WBS KJN, 2012 WL 4747151, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2012).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief and/or a 

temporary restraining order is DENIED. 

Dated: June 11, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-01243-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 06/11/15 Page 3 of 3