(PS) Wallace v. Lynch ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLEVELAND WALLACE; RITA No. 2:20-cv-2265 TLN DB PS WALLACE, Claimant at Law, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. 14 ROSEMARY LYNCH, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiffs Cleveland Wallace and Rita Wallace are proceeding in this action pro se. This 19 matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1). On November 13, 2020, plaintiffs filed a complaint and paid the applicable filing fee. 21 (ECF No. 1.) However, a review of the complaint found that the allegations appeared to be 22 frivolous and delusional. Accordingly, on April 5, 2021, the court issued an order to show cause, 23 ordering plaintiffs to show cause in writing within fourteen days as to why this action should not 24 be dismissed as frivolous.1 (ECF No. 8.) The time provided plaintiffs has expired and plaintiffs 25 have not responded to April 5, 2021 order. 26 1 On April 28, 2021, defendants Buckingham Property Management Corporation and Rosemary 27 Lynch filed an ex parte application for an extension of time to respond to the complaint. (ECF No. 11.) In light of these recommendations, the undersigned will recommend that defendants’ 28 motion be denied as having been rendered moot. 1 ANALYSIS 2 Where a complaint is “obviously frivolous” the district court may dismiss the complaint, 3 even if the plaintiff has paid the filing fee. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 4 1984) (“A paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer federal subject matter 5 jurisdiction . . . and may be dismissed sua sponte before service of process.”); see also Steel Co. 6 v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (“Dismissal for lack of subject-matter 7 jurisdiction because of the inadequacy of the federal claim is proper only when the claim is so 8 insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely 9 devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); 10 Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000) (“[D]istrict 11 courts may dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte even when the plaintiff has paid the required 12 filing fee, just as the Court of Appeals may dismiss frivolous matters in like circumstances.”). 13 Here, a review of plaintiffs’ complaint finds that the allegations are fanciful and 14 delusional. In this regard, the complaint alleges that plaintiffs are “Targeted Individuals” that 15 “ran a foul of the Central Intelligence Agency by an involvement in a financial transaction 16 between the CIA and a Chinese politician.” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 5.) In 2013, the CIA 17 “blocked” plaintiffs “from moving” through the use of “easedroping and use of defamation[.]” 18 (Id. at 7.) And the “CIA perpetrators are employing others to commit atrocities of using viruses 19 to infect [plaintiffs] with disease[.]” (Id. at 11.) Plaintiffs were given an opportunity to show 20 cause for why this action should not be dismissed as frivolous and elected not to respond. (ECF 21 No. 8.) 22 For the reasons stated above, the undersigned finds that plaintiffs’ complaint should be 23 dismissed without prejudice. See Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227, n.6 (“paid complaint that is 24 ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction”). 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 3 1. Plaintiff's November 13, 2020 complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice; 4 2. Defendants’ April 28, 2021 ex parte application (ECF No. 11) be denied as having 5 | been rendered moot; and 6 3. This action be closed. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within thirty days after 9 | being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 10 | the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 11 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served 12 | and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure 13 | to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 14 | order. Martinez yv. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 | Dated: May 19, 2021 16 17 18 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 DLB:6 23 | DB\orders\orders.pro se\wallace2265.friv.f&rs 24 25 26 27 28