UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DNISION 

ERIC FLORES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL 

and FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 

Defendants. 

ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge: 

Case No. 3:15-cv-1948-AC 

FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff Eric Flores ("Flores"), appearing pro se, filed a "Petition to Challenge the 

Constitutionality of the First Amendment"( the "Petition") naming as defendants the United States 

Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (collectively "Defendants"). (Petition, 

ECF No. 2.) Flores seeks certification of a class action, describing the class as the surviving 

members of Mexican American citizens of the United States and identifying seventeen individuals 

Page 1 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION {SIB} 

Case 3:15-cv-01948-AC Document 9 Filed 10/22/15 Page 1 of 4
residing in Austin or El Paso, Texas. (Petition at 2-3.) Flores alleges Defendants violated his civil 

rights while he was illegally incarcerated and used space satellites to alter the genetic code of class 

members, or their relatives, forcing the individuals to do things against their will, such as engage in 

affairs or physically harm others, or causing severe suffering and, on occasion, death. Based on this 

conduct, Flores asserts Defendants violated of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech by 

preventing the pursuit of legal claims, and of free exercise of religious belief, by interfering in the 

holy vows of marriage. 

On September 19, 2015, the court granted Flores the rightto proceed informa pauperis under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires the court to dismiss a case proceeding informa 

pauperis if, at any time, it determines the action is frivolous or malicious. This statute furthers 

Congress's intent to provide access to the courts for those with limited financial means while 

recognizing that "a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a 

paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive 

lawsuits." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 301 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 

(1989)). "[R]epetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action is subject to dismissal under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious." Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (internal 

citation omitted); see also, Cato v. United States, (9th Cir. 1995)(quoting Bailey, 846 F.2d at 

1021 )("There is no abuse of discretion where a district court dismisses under § 1915( d)1 a complaint 

'that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.'") 

An action is repetitive of another if the claims, the nucleus of facts, and the parties to the 

action are the same. WEC Co. v. Versarail Systems, Inc., No. CIV. 98-14 750HU, 1999 WL 814515, 

1

28 U.S.C. §1915(d) was renumbered 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 

Page 2 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION {SIB} 

Case 3:15-cv-01948-AC Document 9 Filed 10/22/15 Page 2 of 4
at * 1 (D. Or. Sept. 20, 1999). Flores represents he "has filed over fifty ... civil cause of actions 

entitled 'Petition to Challenge the Constitutionality of First Amendment' which were instituted in 

over fifty United States District Courts throughout the United States of America" and asks that all 

of the pending civil actions be transferred to the District of Columbia to be handled by the Judicial 

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. (Motion to Transfer at 1, ECF No. 

4.) It is evident from Flores's allegations he has filed more than one action asserting the same 

claims, which the court confinned through a Pacer search.2 Additionally, Flores filed an identical 

petition in the Medford Division of this court earlier this year. Flores v. US. Attorney General, CV 

No. 1: 15-cv-644-CL. The court dismissed the action as frivolous and noted the many other actions 

filed by Flores asserting claims based on the direction of satellite transmissions at MexicanAmerican citizens. Flores v. US. Attorney General, CV No. 1:15-cv-644-CL, Findings and 

Recommendations and Recommendation filed April 2, 2015, Adopted May 12, 2015. 

In light of evidence establishing this action is repetitive of many others filed by Flores, the 

court finds the initiation of this action was malicious under § 1915(d) and must be dismissed. 

Additionally, applying the reasoning of Judge Clark to this action, the Petition, even when viewed 

liberally, is facially frivolous and the deficiencies are not likely to be cured by amendment. 

Accordingly, this action should be dismissed as frivolous as well. 

Conclusion 

Flores's Petition (IYJ) should be DISMISSED sua sponte as frivolous and malicious under 

2

See, eg. Flores v. US. Attorney General, CV No. 1 :15-cv-3669-RWS, filed in the Northern 

DistrictofGeorgia;Floresv. US. Attorney General, CV No. 5:13-cv-114-FDW, filedin the Western 

District of North Carolina; Flores v. US. Attorney General, CV No. 3:15-cv-381, filed in the 

Southern District of Ohio; Flores v. US. Attorney General, CV No. CV-15-2116-PHX-MHB, filed 

in the District of Arizona. 

Page 3 - FlNDlNGS AND RECOMMENDATION {SIB} 

Case 3:15-cv-01948-AC Document 9 Filed 10/22/15 Page 3 of 4
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and Flores's informa pauperis status withdrawn. Flores's Request for Judicial 

Notice (#3) and Motion to Transfer to Multidistrict Litigation (#4) should be DENIED as moot. 

Scheduling Order 

The Findings and Recommendation will be refetTed to a district judge for review. 

Objections, if any, are due November 9, 2015. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and 

Recommendation will go under advisement on that date. 

If objections are filed, then a response is due within 14 days after being served with a copy 

of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and 

Recommendation will go under advisement. 

DATED this 22"d day of October, 2015. 

JOHN V. ACOSTA 

United States Magistrate Judge v 

Page 4 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION {SIB} 

Case 3:15-cv-01948-AC Document 9 Filed 10/22/15 Page 4 of 4