Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01431/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01431-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Anthony Fallon
Plaintiff
United States Government
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-05-1431 LKK DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

Defendant.

____________________________/

By order filed November 22, 2005, plaintiff, proceeding in

this action pro se, was directed to show cause in writing why this

matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Plaintiff was forewarned that the failure to timely

comply with that order would result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed. The required time has expired and plaintiff has

not responded to the court’s order.

As observed in the order to show cause, the one-page

handwritten complaint submitted by plaintiff is largely illegible. 

It appears to allege that plaintiff has initiated this action to

Case 2:05-cv-01431-LKK -DAD Document 9 Filed 12/21/05 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

recover money damages of “four trillion dollars” as a result of an

incident involving plaintiff’s brother, “local police,” and another

man who apparently is deceased. No basis for federal jurisdiction is

alleged. Therefore, the undersigned finds 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 RECOMMENDED that this action be

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

P. 12(h)(3).

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 twenty days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 

written objections with the court. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

Case 2:05-cv-01431-LKK -DAD Document 9 Filed 12/21/05 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

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 21, 2005.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\fallon1431.f&r

Case 2:05-cv-01431-LKK -DAD Document 9 Filed 12/21/05 Page 3 of 3