Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00552/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00552-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES C. MAXEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT BARACK 

OBAMA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-552-JAM-EFB PS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.1

 His 

declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 2. 

Accordingly, the request is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Determining plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status does not complete the required inquiry. 

Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines the 

allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. As 

explained below, plaintiff’s first amended complaint2

 must be dismissed for failure to state a 

claim. 

 1

 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the 

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

2

 Plaintiff amended his complaint as a matter of course seven days after initiating this 

action. ECF No. 3; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). 

Case 2:15-cv-00552-JAM-EFB Document 31 Filed 10/22/15 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 

27 

28 

2

Also pending is a motion by the United States to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant.3 

ECF No. 4. For the reasons state below, that motion is moot. 

I. Screening Requirement and Standards 

 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 

fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 

(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of 

his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 

a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 

relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are 

true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 

legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations 

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), 

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the 

plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy 

the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) 

requires a complaint to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds 

upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

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

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

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, 

confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction 

 3

 The court determined that oral argument would not materially assist the court and 

hearing on that motion was vacated. ECF No. 10; see E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). 

Case 2:15-cv-00552-JAM-EFB Document 31 Filed 10/22/15 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 

27 

28 

3

requires that the complaint (1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2) allege a 

“case or controversy” within the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or (3) be 

authorized by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers federal 

jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke the court’s diversity 

jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically allege the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that the 

matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American World 

Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). A case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction 

of the federal courts unless demonstrated otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-78. Lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court. Attorneys 

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

II. Screening Order 

 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to § 1915(e) and finds that it must 

be dismissed as frivolous. The first amended complaint is delusional. It names as defendants 

President Obama; former presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and 

James Carter; California Governor Edmund Brown; Hillary Clinton; California Attorney General 

Kamala Harris; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; The United States Department of Justice; the 

National Security Agency; the United States Air Force; the United States Secret Service, Kaiser 

Foundation Hospital; Ramona Williams; Ronald Williams; Timothy Cucich; Robert W. Maxey; 

and Robert M. Maxey. ECF No. 3. The amended complaint alleges that since January 1978, 

plaintiff “has been subjected to physical assault, torture, electronic shock treatment, remotedelivered radiation and electronic signals laser beamed into the his [sic] residence.” ECF No. 3 at 

2. He claims that in July 1969, “the United States Air Force inserted ‘satellite microchip 

technology’ into [his] brain and body.” Id. at 4. He claims that this implantation was approved 

by the Air Force, the Office of President Richard Nixon, and his father, Robert W. Maxey. Id. 

 He further claims that in 2013 the United States Secret Service confirmed the existence of 

the implanted microchip and “conspired with Robert M. Maxey (estranged brother) to intimidate, 

threaten and coerce the Plaintiff into authorizing the release of his confidential medical files.” Id. 

at 5. He also alleges that President Barack Obama, California Governor Edmund Brown, and 

Case 2:15-cv-00552-JAM-EFB Document 31 Filed 10/22/15 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 

27 

28 

4

former United States presidents and California governors have engaged in various illegal actives, 

including torture and attempted murder, in an effort to conceal “public disclosure of billions of 

dollars illegally derived from ‘satellite microchip implant technology’” implanted in plaintiff’s 

brain. Id. at 3. He claims that such conduct violated his constitutionally protected rights. Id. at 6. 

Plaintiff’s allegations are plainly frivolous because they lack even “an arguable basis 

either in law or in fact,” and appear “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional.” Neitzke v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 325, 328 (1989). Therefore, this action must be dismissed without leave to amend. 

See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Under Ninth Circuit case law, district 

courts are only required to grant leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are 

not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”); see also Doe v. United 

States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if 

no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not be 

cured by the allegation of other facts.”). 

 III. Vexatious Litigant Motion 

 The United States requests an order declaring plaintiff a vexatious litigant. ECF No. 4. 

However, plaintiff has since been declared a vexatious litigant in another case before this court 

and is now subject to a prefiling order. See Maxey v. Johnson, No. 2:15-cv-1656 JAM-EFB, ECF 

No. 7. Accordingly, the government’s motion filed in this action (ECF No. 4) is now moot. 

IV. Conclusion 

 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 3) be dismissed without leave to amend; 

 2. The United States of America’s motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant (ECF 

No. 4) be denied as moot; and 

 3. The Clerk be directed to close this case. 

 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)(l). Within fourteen 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 

Case 2:15-cv-00552-JAM-EFB Document 31 Filed 10/22/15 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 

27 

28 

5

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: October 22, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00552-JAM-EFB Document 31 Filed 10/22/15 Page 5 of 5