Dickson v. Biden ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER DICKSON, Case No. 1:21-cv-01824-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. 9) 14 JOE BIDEN, JANET YELLEN, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Christopher Dickson initiated this action proceeding pro se by filing a complaint 18 identifying President Joe Biden and Secretary of Treasure Janet Yellen as Defendants. (Doc. 1.) 19 Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis but later paid the full filing fee. The matter 20 was referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 21 Eastern District of California Local Rule 302. 22 The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending the 23 district court dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction and moot Plaintiff’s motion labeled a 24 motion to dismiss. (Doc. 9 at 1-6.) The findings and recommendations provided notice that any 25 objections were due within fourteen days. (Id. at 1, 6.) Plaintiff timely filed objections on October 26 26, 2022. (Doc. 10.) 27 In summary, Plaintiff objects to dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction and asserts 28 that he seeks relief under the Emergency Banking Relief Act and the Trading with the Enemy 1 | Act. Ud. at 1). Plaintiff asserts that, under these Acts, the Eastern District of California is the 2 | proper Court because he resides within that jurisdiction. (/d. at 2.) Plaintiff further challenges the 3 | magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to the extent it found Plaintiff does not request 4 | any specific relief. (/d.) Plaintiff asserts he seeks equitable relief “[b]ecause he is not attacking the 5 | conviction but the process.” (Id.) 6 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this 7 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations 8 | to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. As the findings and recommendations point 9 | out, the Complaint is filled with nonsensical allegations and references to archaic statutes, and 10 | lacks any cogent, plausible explanation as to how the referenced statutes relate to Plaintiff or 11 | Plaintiffs circumstances. “A mere citation to a federal statute that does not include factual 12 | allegations to support a valid cause of action is not sufficient to support federal question 13 | jurisdiction.” Easton v. Crossland Motg. Corp., 114 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1997). Thus, the 14 | Court ORDERS: 15 1. The Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 9) are ADOPTED IN FULL. 16 2. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED. 17 3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate any pending motions, close this case, and enter 18 judgment against plaintiff. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 | Dated: _November 7, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28