Case 2:14-cv-00183-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/27/14 Page 1 of 18
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`No. 2:14-cv-133-JAM-EFB PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-134-JAM-EFB PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-135-KJM-KJN PS
`
`
`
`1
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CALIFORNIA STATE BAR
`ASSOCIATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FEDERAL BUREAU OF
`INVESTIGATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`JANET SCULLY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00183-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/27/14 Page 2 of 18
`
`No. 2:14-cv-136-MCE-CKD PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-137-MCE-DAD PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-138-TLN-AC PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-139-KJM-KJN PS
`
`
`
`2
`
`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
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GEORGE W. BUSH,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HALLIBURTON U.S.A., INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ELLY WILLERUP,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00183-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/27/14 Page 3 of 18
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`No. 2:14-cv-140-TLN-DAD PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-141-GEB-CKD PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-142-TLN-EFB PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-143-TLN-DAD PS
`
`
`
`3
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GERMANY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CALIFORNIA TEACHERS
`ASSOCIATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DAVID STERN,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SACRAMENTO KINGS (N.B.A.) INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00183-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/27/14 Page 4 of 18
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`No. 2:14-cv-144-JAM-AC PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-145-JAM-CKD PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-146-KJM-DAD PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-147-TLN-KJN PS
`
`
`
`4
`
`v.
`
`INDIA,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SIEMENS U.S.A., INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPUTY
`SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CALIFORNIA STATE FIREFIGHTERS
`ASSOCIATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00183-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/27/14 Page 5 of 18
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`No. 2:14-cv-149-LKK-CKD PS
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-150-MCE-CKD PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-151-KJM-KJN PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-152-GEB-AC PS
`
`
`
`5
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`RICHARD CHENEY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`EDMUND G. BROWN,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`KAMALA HARRIS,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`v.
`
`ERIC HOLDER,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00183-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/27/14 Page 6 of 18
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`No. 2:14-cv-164-JAM-EFB PS
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-165-TLN-KJN PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-166-KJM-CKD PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-167-MCE-AC PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-168-MCE-AC PS
`
`
`
`6
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FOX BUSINESS CHANNEL,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ENGLAND,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`v.
`
`SPAIN,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`v.
`
`FRANCE,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FOX NEWS CHANNEL,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00183-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/27/14 Page 7 of 18
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`No. 2:14-cv-169-MCE-AC PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-170-JAM-CKD PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-171-GEB-DAD PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-172-LKK-AC PS
`
`
`
`7
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SACRAMENTO BEE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`RUPPERT MURDOCH,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CATHERINE AND SOPHIE BUTCHER,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
`DEPARTMENT,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00183-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/27/14 Page 8 of 18
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`No. 2:14-cv-173-TLN-DAD PS
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-174-KJM-DAD PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-175-TLN-EFB PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-176-LKK-EFB PS
`
`
`
`8
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT MUELLER,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`JERRY ZANELLI,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`v.
`
`BUZZ OATES,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`THEODORE GAINES,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00183-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/27/14 Page 9 of 18
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`No. 2:14-cv-177-TLN- DAD PS
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
`RELATIONS BOARD,
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-178-JAM-CKD PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-179-MCE-KJN PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-180-MCE-CKD PS
`
`
`
`9
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MARK STAWICKI,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CALIFORNIA NURSES (UNION)
`ASSOCIATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`QUEEN ELIZABETH, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00183-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/27/14 Page 10 of 18
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`No. 2:14-cv-181-MCE-EFB PS
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-182-LKK-KJN PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-183-GEB-AC PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-184-KJM-DAD PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-185-TLN-KJN PS
`
`
`
`10
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`VALERIE BUTCHER,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL LUNDGREN,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`JOHN BUTCHER,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`EMILY F. COX,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CRAIG BUTCHER,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00183-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/27/14 Page 11 of 18
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`No. 2:14-cv-187-KJM-DAD PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-188-KJM-EFB PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-189-KJM-AC PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-190-JAM-DAD PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-191-JAM-EFB PS
`
`
`
`11
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`PETER REYNAUD,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MARCUS ZIEMER,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MATHEW BARNES,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`PATRICIA STAINES,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SCREEN ACTORS GUILD ASSN.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00183-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/27/14 Page 12 of 18
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`No. 2:14-cv-192-MCE-KJN PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-193-GEB-EFB PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-194-TLN-EFB PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-195-JAM-AC PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-197-TLN-CKD PS
`
`
`
`12
`
`v.
`
`ITALY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`A.R.C.O. GASOLINE STATIONS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ENTERCOM, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CHEVRON STATIONS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GARY MESSING,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00183-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/27/14 Page 13 of 18
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`No. 2:14-cv-198-KJM-CKD PS
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CRESTVIEW VILLAGE APARTMENTS,
`
`No. 2:14-cv-199-LKK-DAD PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-200-MCE-AC PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-201-JAM-AC PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-202-TLN-KJN PS
`
`
`
`13
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BUZZ OATES CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`PHILLIP WRIGHT,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`JENNIFER SILVA,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ROGER NIELLO,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00183-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/27/14 Page 14 of 18
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`No. 2:14-cv-203-GEB-EFB PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-204-GEB-KJN PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-205-TLN-CKD PS
`
`
`
`No. 2:14-cv-207-KJM-DAD PS
`
`
`
`14
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`KARLA LaCAYO,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`RUPINA MANN,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CHRISTINA MENDONSA,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`VALERO GASOLINE STATIONS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00183-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/27/14 Page 15 of 18
`
`JAMES C. MAXEY,
`
`No. 2:14-cv-208-MCE-CKD PS
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`RELATED CASE ORDER AND
`
`HERITAGE OAKS HOSPITAL, INC.,
`
`FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals that the actions are related within the
`
`meaning of E.D. Cal. Local Rule 123. The actions involve similar claims and similar questions of
`
`fact and law, and would therefore entail a substantial duplication of labor if heard by different
`
`judges. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 123(a). Accordingly, the assignment of the matters to the same judge
`
`is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort and is also likely to be convenient for the
`
`parties.
`
`The parties should be aware that relating the cases under Local Rules 123 merely has the
`
`result that both actions are assigned to the same judge and magistrate judge; no consolidation of
`
`the actions is affected.
`
`A.
`
`Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
`
`In each of the above-entitled actions, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona,
`
`plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff’s
`
`declarations make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, the
`
`requests to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
`
`B.
`
`Screening of Plaintiff’s Complaints
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if
`
`it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to
`
`state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune
`
`defendant.
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00183-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/27/14 Page 16 of 18
`
`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
`
`Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
`
`520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it
`
`fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
`
`Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41
`
`(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of
`
`his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
`
`a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
`
`relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are
`
`true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable
`
`legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories.
`
`Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
`
`In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations
`
`of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976),
`
`construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the
`
`plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy
`
`the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2)
`
`“requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
`
`is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds
`
`upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing
`
`Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).
`
`The complaints filed in the above-entitled actions are almost identical, containing only
`
`minor differences in each case. In each complaint, plaintiff alleges that the action arises from
`
`“plaintiff being deprived the most basic rights guaranteed by the California and United States
`
`Constitution and statutory law.” Plaintiff alleges that he is a resident of Carmichael, California,
`
`and that he is unemployed and disabled due to the actions of the named defendant. Plaintiff
`
`alleges that venue is appropriate in this district for each case because “numerous acts,
`
`transactions, wrongs, and breaches of contract give rise to violations of civil and criminal law
`
`described in this complaint [which] occurred within this county, state and other states.”
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00183-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/27/14 Page 17 of 18
`
`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
`
`Each complaint also contains a section entitled “Allegations Applicable to All Causes of
`
`Action.” This section consists of boilerplate created by plaintiff wherein he leaves blanks to later
`
`fill in. This section appears in each complaint as follows:
`
`The plaintiff, James C. Maxey, suffered injury due to the actions of the [space provided
`for plaintiff to inserts the names of individuals or companies] on, or about [space where
`plaintiff inserts a date]. The plaintiff’s injuries were caused by [blank space where
`plaintiff identifies different parties or companies] associates affiliated [another blank
`space, often filled in with “The Republican Party”].
`
`
`
`In some of his complaints, plaintiff adds another sentence to the allegation section, which
`
`provides, “From September 2001 through the present time, the plaintiff was fraudulently
`
`misrepresented as being associated with Osama Bin Laden.”
`
`All complaints further allege that “defendants have harassed, intimidated, coerced,
`
`blackmailed, physically assaulted, falsely arrested, falsely convicted and falsely imprisoned the
`
`plaintiff as part of an illegal conspiracy to suppress his rights under the U.S. Constitution.” Each
`
`complaint also requests, among other things, that the court issue an order requiring the City of
`
`Sacramento to “delay any planning or construction of any downtown sports arena, until the City
`
`Council legally litigates . . . James C. Maxey v. Sacramento Kings (NBA) Inc.” In many of his
`
`complaints, plaintiff requests one billion dollars in damages for his injuries.
`
`Apart from the sheer number of complaints filed by plaintiff, his complaints name many different
`
`defendants who--as best as can be gleaned from the complaints--appear to have nothing to do
`
`with plaintiff, including the Country of Germany, Queen Elizabeth II, Dick Cheney, Eric Holder,
`
`George Bush, Chevron Gas Stations, and the California Teachers Associations, just to name a
`
`few. Plaintiff’s allegations include conclusory and unexplained assertions that the defendants in
`
`each case blackmailed, falsely imprisoned, and physically assaulted him. However, the complaint
`
`does not contain specific factual allegations showing any particular cause of action as to any
`
`particular defendant. Nor does the complaint show how this court would have subject matter
`
`jurisdiction over any such claim. Given the failure of the complaint to establish or even suggest a
`
`legally cognizable claim, the court finds that all of plaintiff’s above captioned complaints are
`
`frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (observing that a court has the
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00183-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/27/14 Page 18 of 18
`
`“power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose
`
`factual contentions are clearly baseless,” which includes “claims describing fantastic or
`
`delusional scenarios.”). Accordingly, the all of the above-entitled actions must be dismissed
`
`without leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448
`
`(9th Cir. 1987 (While the court ordinarily would permit a pro se plaintiff to amend, leave to
`
`amend should not be granted where it appears amendment would be futile).
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
`
`1. The above-entitled actions are reassigned to Judge Mendez and Magistrate Judge
`
`Brennan for all further proceedings.
`
`2. Plaintiff’s requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed in the above-entitled
`
`actions, are granted subject to the recommendation below.
`
`3. The Clerk is directed to file a copy of this order and findings and recommendations in
`
`the above-entitled cases.
`
`Further, it is RECOMMENDED that:
`
`1. Plaintiff’s complaints filed in the above-entitled cases be dismissed without leave to
`
`amend; and
`
`2. The Clerk be directed to close the above-entitled cases.
`
`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 fourteen days
`
`after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
`
`objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
`
`“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections
`
`within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.
`
`Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
`
`DATED: January 27, 2014.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18