Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02132/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02132-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Anthony Fallon
Plaintiff
Mae Jean Petersen
Defendant

Document Text:

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-05-2132 MCE DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER AND

MAE JEAN PETERSEN, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendant.

____________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested

leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-

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

Plaintiff has not submitted the required affidavit

regarding his alleged inability to pay fees, plaintiff having

provided only a brief typed statement in this regard. Accordingly,

the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied without

prejudice.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02132-MCE -DAD Document 3 Filed 03/13/06 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

2

Plaintiff’s brief, difficult to decipher complaint seeks to

recover damages from his mother, defendant Mae Jean Petersen, in the

amount of $1,000 per day from 1974 to the present. The complaint

alleges that defendant “did convict my life to [poverty], but paid to

[my] Brother, a lot of constant Money, and a Trailer to live in.” 

(Compl. at 1.) The complaint alleges that such financial support of

plaintiff’s brother is inappropriate because of the brother’s alleged

involvement in a number of serious crimes. Nonetheless, no basis for

federal jurisdiction is alleged. Indeed, it appears that the court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

pauperis is denied without prejudice to submitting an amended

application. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a

new application to proceed without prepayment of fees and affidavit.

Case 2:05-cv-02132-MCE -DAD Document 3 Filed 03/13/06 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

3

If plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, he shall properly complete

and file an amended in forma pauperis application, or pay the

appropriate statutory filing fee, within twenty days of the date this

order is filed;

2. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within twenty

days of the date this order is filed why this matter should not be

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(h)(3); and

3. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to timely

comply with the terms of this order will result in a recommendation

that this action be dismissed.

DATED: March 10, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\fallon2132.ifp.osc

Case 2:05-cv-02132-MCE -DAD Document 3 Filed 03/13/06 Page 3 of 3