Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-mc-80363/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-mc-80363-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Anthony Fallon
Plaintiff
United States Government
Defendant

Document Text:

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID ANTHONY FALLON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

 Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 06-80362-MISC MHP

No. C 06-80363-MISC MHP

ORDER

On December 26, 2006, plaintiff David Anthony Fallon filed what appear to be two

complaints, each naming the “United States Government” as the sole defendant. The first

“complaint” (No. C 06-80362-MISC MHP) states only that Fallon lived in a particular house and

attended public schools in South San Francisco from 1958 to 1975, and that he is therefore entitled

to a judgment of one hundred trillion dollars. The second “complaint” (No. C 06-80363-MISC

MHP) is largely unintelligible, but claims that Fallon is entitled to judgment in the amount of eight

hundred trillion dollars.

A district court may deny in forma pauperis status and dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint is frivolous if “it lacks any arguable basis either in law

or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint that is clearly based on

“fantastic or delusional scenarios” may be dismissed as frivolous under section 1915. Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). Fallon’s latest complaints are frivolous because they are

Case 3:06-mc-80363-MHP Document 1 Filed 01/08/07 Page 1 of 2
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

unintelligible and appear to be grounded on fantastic or delusional scenarios.

Given Fallon’s extensive history of filing frivolous pro se complaints, often against the

United States Government, this court has previously ordered that Fallon shall not file any further

actions in this court without receiving pre-filing approval by this judge. See Order re Filing, Fallon

v. United States Government, No. 06-80179-MISC MHP, Docket No. 2 (Aug. 31, 2006). Because

Fallon’s latest complaints are frivolous and unintelligible, the court does not approve these filings.

The court therefore DENIES plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and

DISMISSES these complaints without leave to amend. Accordingly, these actions are hereby

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________________________

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:06-mc-80363-MHP Document 1 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 2