Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-mc-80002/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-mc-80002-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Anthony Fallon
Plaintiff
United States
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 07-80002-MISC MHP

ORDER

On January 3, 2007, plaintiff David Anthony Fallon filed what appears to be a complaint,

naming the “United States Government” as the sole defendant. The “complaint” is largely

unintelligible, but contains vague allusions to Fallon falling victim to an armed robbery in 1980 and

being refused medical treatment by the South San Francisco Police Department. The complaint also

contains a brief, nonsensical discussion of Fallon’s mother being treated for “Carpet [sic] Tunnel

Syomdrone [sic].” No logical connection is drawn between these three events. Fallon nonetheless

claims he is entitled to judgment in the amount of three 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 complaint is frivolous because it is unintelligible

Case 3:07-mc-80002-MHP Document 2 Filed 01/11/07 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

and appears 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 complaint is 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 3:07-mc-80002-MHP Document 2 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 2