Leon v. Pacific Scientific Energetic Materials Company et al

Filing 5

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/13/2013 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed as duplicative. Plaintiff' ;s 3 , 4 motions for service by certified mail and for permission to e-file be denied as moot. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case and vacate all dates. Motions referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MICHAEL A. LEON,

11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

No. 2:13-cv-0838 MCE KJN PS

vs.
PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC ENERGETIC
MATERIALS COMPANY/PACIFIC
SCIENTIFIC,
Defendant.
_______________________________/

ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

16
17

Plaintiff Michael A. Leon, a resident of Arizona, who is proceeding without

18

counsel, filed this action on April 29, 2013, alleging claims for intentional infliction of emotional

19

distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, libel and slander (defamation), and invasion of

20

privacy/false light against defendant Pacific Scientific Energetic Materials Company/Pacific

21

Scientific, a California entity, and other Doe defendants. (Dkt. No. 1.)1 The complaint

22

purportedly invokes the court’s diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Id.)

23

Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees, or in forma pauperis.

24

(Dkt. No. 2). Thereafter, on May 6, 2013, plaintiff filed motions for service by certified mail and

25

for permission to e-file. (Dkt. Nos. 3, 4.)

26
1

This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

Plaintiff’s application in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis

2

makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the undersigned grants

3

plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.

4

The determination that a plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not

5

complete the required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to

6

dismiss the case at any time if it determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the

7

action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks

8

monetary relief against an immune defendant.

9

Although plaintiff’s complaint is somewhat confusing and replete with religious

10

quotes and references, plaintiff, whose career has ostensibly been in electronics aerospace,

11

alleges that in January and February 2013, an individual named Fiona Greig, associated with

12

either Boeing and/or Securaplane, falsely stated that plaintiff was a convicted felon, that he was

13

fired for “internet usage e-mail,” and that he set up certain faulty test setups. (See Dkt. No. 1.)

14

Plaintiff claims that he suffered loss of his reputation, shame, mortification, emotional distress,

15

and other harm as a result of these false statements. (Id.) As noted above, plaintiff asserts claims

16

for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, libel and

17

slander (defamation), and invasion of privacy/false light against defendant Pacific Scientific

18

Energetic Materials Company/Pacific Scientific. (Id.) It is unclear exactly what the named

19

defendant Pacific Scientific’s connection with these allegations are.

20

Regardless, a review of the court’s records reveals that the above-mentioned

21

allegations are virtually identical to those contained in plaintiff’s complaint filed in this court’s

22

Fresno division on February 25, 2013, in United States of America, ex rel. Michael A. Leon v.

23

Meggitt PLC, et al., 1:13-cv-270-LJO-MJS, Dkt. No. 1. Although the earlier case involves

24

additional claims and defendants, it includes the same claims against defendant Pacific Scientific

25

Energetic Materials Company/Pacific Scientific that are asserted in this case, which in turn are

26

based on the same factual allegations that are asserted in this case. This action is therefore
2

1

duplicative of plaintiff’s previously-filed action, and the court thus recommends that the action

2

be dismissed on that basis. The court further recommends that plaintiff’s remaining pending

3

motions in this case be denied as moot.

4
5

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 2) is GRANTED.

6

IT IS ALSO HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

7

1. The action be DISMISSED as duplicative.

8

2. Plaintiff’s motions for service by certified mail and for permission to e-file

9

(dkt. nos. 3, 4) be DENIED AS MOOT.

10

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case and vacate all dates.

11

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

12

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen

13

(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

14

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

15

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

16

shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the

17

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

18

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th

19

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.
DATED: May 13, 2013

22
23

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
3