Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04631/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04631-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENETTA L. PRICE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04631-RS 

ORDER DENYING INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF AND REQUIRING

PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

The general nature of plaintiffs’ allegations have been described in prior orders and will 

not be repeated here. Without seeking leave to do so, plaintiffs have submitted a “Second 

Amended Complaint” which they assert sets forth their factual allegations and contentions with 

greater clarity. In light of plaintiffs’ status as pro se litigants, their failure to seek leave in advance 

will be excused on this occasion, and the Corrected Second Amended Complaint filed April 22, 

2016 (Dkt. No. 18) will be deemed to be the operative complaint herein.

Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order at the outset of this action was denied 

for the reasons set forth in an order filed November 2, 2015 (Dkt. No. 4). Plaintiffs now renew 

their request for preliminary relief, and request an order enjoining defendants from complying 

with an alleged Presidential order that purportedly authorizes them to perform “a medical process

that is commonly known as Neuromodulation or any similar medical process involving electrical 

stimulation through wave technology on Plaintiffs, from a remote distance.”

Case 3:15-cv-04631-RS Document 20 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 15-cv-04631-RS

2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

 As was the case with the previous application, neither the materials submitted in support of 

the request for preliminary relief, nor the allegations of the underlying complaint present a basis 

on which a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction could issue. See generally, 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28, (1989) (holding in context of in forma pauperis

applications, “claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless” include those “describing 

fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar.”) 

Accordingly, the request for preliminary relief is denied.

Although plaintiffs did not seek in forma pauperis status in this matter, the record 

demonstrates that it is appropriate to address the viability of the claims on a sua sponte basis. 

Plaintiffs have repeatedly sought continuances of the Case Management Conference and it does 

not appear that service of summons and complaint on any defendant has been made, or will be 

made within a reasonable time frame. Plaintiffs have failed to keep the Court apprised of their 

address, with the result that Court mail to them has been returned as undeliverable.

Accordingly, no later than May 29, 2016, plaintiffs shall file a brief and/or declarations 

showing cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or for 

failure to prosecute. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to the address shown on 

plaintiffs’ most recent filings. In the event plaintiffs fail to respond, this action may be dismissed 

without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2016

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04631-RS Document 20 Filed 04/22/16 Page 2 of 2