Maxey v. Chevron Stations Inc.

Filing 3

RELATED CASE ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/27/2014 GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP, REASSIGNING ACTION to District Judge John A. Mendez and Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without leave to amend. This matter is referred to District Judge John A. Mendez. Any party (Waggoner, D)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES C. MAXEY,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant.

16
17

JAMES C. MAXEY,

18
19
20
21

v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION,
Defendant.
JAMES C. MAXEY,

24
25
26
27

No. 2:14-cv-134-JAM-EFB PS

Plaintiff,

22
23

No. 2:14-cv-133-JAM-EFB PS

No. 2:14-cv-135-KJM-KJN PS

Plaintiff,
v.
JANET SCULLY,
Defendant.

28
1

1
2

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

3
v.

4
5

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
Defendant.

6
7

JAMES C. MAXEY,

8

No. 2:14-cv-137-MCE-DAD PS

Plaintiff,

9
10

No. 2:14-cv-136-MCE-CKD PS

v.
GEORGE W. BUSH,

11

Defendant.

12
13

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

14
v.

15
16

HALLIBURTON U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant.

17
18

JAMES C. MAXEY,

19

No. 2:14-cv-139-KJM-KJN PS

Plaintiff,

20
21

No. 2:14-cv-138-TLN-AC PS

v.
ELLY WILLERUP,

22

Defendant.

23
24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

JAMES C. MAXEY,

2

Plaintiff,

3
4

No. 2:14-cv-140-TLN-DAD PS

v.
GERMANY,

5

Defendant.

6
7

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

No. 2:14-cv-141-GEB-CKD PS

CALIFORNIA TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION,

11

Defendant.

12
13

JAMES C. MAXEY,

No. 2:14-cv-142-TLN-EFB PS

Plaintiff,

14
15

v.

16

DAVID STERN,
Defendant.

17
18

JAMES C. MAXEY,

19

Plaintiff,

20
21

No. 2:14-cv-143-TLN-DAD PS

v.
SACRAMENTO KINGS (N.B.A.) INC.,

22

Defendant.

23
24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
3

1

JAMES C. MAXEY,

2

Plaintiff,

3
4

No. 2:14-cv-144-JAM-AC PS

v.
INDIA,

5

Defendant.

6
7

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

SIEMENS U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant.

11
12

JAMES C. MAXEY,

13

16

v.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPUTY
SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION,
Defendant.

17
18

JAMES C. MAXEY,

19

22

No. 2:14-cv-147-TLN-KJN PS

Plaintiff,

20
21

No. 2:14-cv-146-KJM-DAD PS

Plaintiff,

14
15

No. 2:14-cv-145-JAM-CKD PS

v.
CALIFORNIA STATE FIREFIGHTERS
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant.

23
24
25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
4

1

JAMES C. MAXEY,

2

Plaintiff,

3
4

No. 2:14-cv-149-LKK-CKD PS

v.
RICHARD CHENEY,

5

Defendant.

6
7

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

EDMUND G. BROWN,
Defendant.

11
12

JAMES C. MAXEY,

13

No. 2:14-cv-151-KJM-KJN PS

Plaintiff,

14
15

No. 2:14-cv-150-MCE-CKD PS

v.
KAMALA HARRIS,

16

Defendant.

17
18

JAMES C. MAXEY,

No. 2:14-cv-152-GEB-AC PS

Plaintiff,

19
20

v.

21

ERIC HOLDER,
Defendant.

22
23
24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
5

1

JAMES C. MAXEY,

2
3
4

No. 2:14-cv-164-JAM-EFB PS

Plaintiff,
v.
FOX BUSINESS CHANNEL,

5

Defendant.

6
7

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

v.
ENGLAND,
Defendant.

11
12

JAMES C. MAXEY,

13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-165-TLN-KJN PS

No. 2:14-cv-166-KJM-CKD PS

Plaintiff,
v.
SPAIN,

16

Defendant.

17
18

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

19
20
21

No. 2:14-cv-167-MCE-AC PS

v.
FRANCE,
Defendant.

22
23

JAMES C. MAXEY,

No. 2:14-cv-168-MCE-AC PS

24
Plaintiff,
25
v.
26
FOX NEWS CHANNEL,
27
Defendant.
28
6

1

JAMES C. MAXEY,

2

No. 2:14-cv-169-MCE-AC PS

Plaintiff,

3

v.

4

SACRAMENTO BEE, INC.,

5

Defendant.

6
7

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

RUPPERT MURDOCH,
Defendant.

11
12

JAMES C. MAXEY,

13

No. 2:14-cv-171-GEB-DAD PS

Plaintiff,

14
15

No. 2:14-cv-170-JAM-CKD PS

v.
CATHERINE AND SOPHIE BUTCHER,

16

Defendants.

17
18

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

19
v.

20
21

No. 2:14-cv-172-LKK-AC PS

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT,

22

Defendant.

23
24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
7

1

JAMES C. MAXEY,

2

Plaintiff,

3
4

No. 2:14-cv-173-TLN-DAD PS

v.
ROBERT MUELLER,

5

Defendant.

6
7

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

JERRY ZANELLI,
Defendant.

11
12

No. 2:14-cv-175-TLN-EFB PS
JAMES C. MAXEY,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15

No. 2:14-cv-174-KJM-DAD PS

v.
BUZZ OATES,

16

Defendant.

17
18

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

19
v.

20
21

No. 2:14-cv-176-LKK-EFB PS

THEODORE GAINES,
Defendant.

22
23
24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
8

1

JAMES C. MAXEY,

2

Plaintiff,

3
4
5

v.
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS BOARD,
Defendant.

6
7

JAMES C. MAXEY,

8

No. 2:14-cv-178-JAM-CKD PS

Plaintiff,

9
10

No. 2:14-cv-177-TLN- DAD PS

v.
MARK STAWICKI,

11

Defendant.

12
13

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

14
v.

15
16

No. 2:14-cv-179-MCE-KJN PS

CALIFORNIA NURSES (UNION)
ASSOCIATION,

17

Defendant.

18
19

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

20
v.

21
22

No. 2:14-cv-180-MCE-CKD PS

QUEEN ELIZABETH, et al.,
Defendants.

23
24
25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
9

1

JAMES C. MAXEY,

2
3
4

No. 2:14-cv-181-MCE-EFB PS

Plaintiff,
v.
VALERIE BUTCHER,

5

Defendant.

6
7

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

v.
DANIEL LUNDGREN,
Defendant.

11
12

JAMES C. MAXEY,

13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-182-LKK-KJN PS

No. 2:14-cv-183-GEB-AC PS

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN BUTCHER,

16

Defendant.

17
18

JAMES C. MAXEY,

No. 2:14-cv-184-KJM-DAD PS

Plaintiff,

19
20

v.

21

EMILY F. COX,
Defendant.

22
23

JAMES C. MAXEY,

No. 2:14-cv-185-TLN-KJN PS

24
Plaintiff,
25
v.
26
CRAIG BUTCHER,
27
Defendant.
28
10

1

JAMES C. MAXEY,

2
3
4

No. 2:14-cv-187-KJM-DAD PS

Plaintiff,
v.
PETER REYNAUD,

5

Defendant.

6
7

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

v.
MARCUS ZIEMER,
Defendant.

11
12

JAMES C. MAXEY,

13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-188-KJM-EFB PS

No. 2:14-cv-189-KJM-AC PS

Plaintiff,
v.
MATHEW BARNES,

16

Defendant.

17
18

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

19
20
21

No. 2:14-cv-190-JAM-DAD PS

v.
PATRICIA STAINES,
Defendant.

22
23

JAMES C. MAXEY,

No. 2:14-cv-191-JAM-EFB PS

24
Plaintiff,
25
v.
26
SCREEN ACTORS GUILD ASSN.,
27
Defendant.
28
11

1

JAMES C. MAXEY,

2
3
4

No. 2:14-cv-192-MCE-KJN PS

Plaintiff,
v.
ITALY,

5

Defendant.

6
7

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

v.
A.R.C.O. GASOLINE STATIONS, INC.,
Defendant.

11
12

JAMES C. MAXEY,

13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-193-GEB-EFB PS

No. 2:14-cv-194-TLN-EFB PS

Plaintiff,
v.
ENTERCOM, INC.,

16

Defendant.

17
18

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

19
20
21

No. 2:14-cv-195-JAM-AC PS

v.
CHEVRON STATIONS, INC.,
Defendant.

22
23

JAMES C. MAXEY,

No. 2:14-cv-197-TLN-CKD PS

24
Plaintiff,
25
v.
26
GARY MESSING,
27
Defendant.
28
12

1

JAMES C. MAXEY,

2
3
4

No. 2:14-cv-198-KJM-CKD PS

Plaintiff,
v.
CRESTVIEW VILLAGE APARTMENTS,

5

Defendant.

6
7

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

v.
BUZZ OATES CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Defendant.

11
12

JAMES C. MAXEY,

13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-199-LKK-DAD PS

No. 2:14-cv-200-MCE-AC PS

Plaintiff,
v.
PHILLIP WRIGHT,

16

Defendant.

17
18

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

19
20
21

No. 2:14-cv-201-JAM-AC PS

v.
JENNIFER SILVA,
Defendant.

22
23

JAMES C. MAXEY,

No. 2:14-cv-202-TLN-KJN PS

24
Plaintiff,
25
v.
26
ROGER NIELLO,
27
Defendant.
28
13

1

JAMES C. MAXEY,

2

Plaintiff,

3
4

No. 2:14-cv-203-GEB-EFB PS

v.
KARLA LaCAYO,

5

Defendant.

6
7

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

RUPINA MANN,
Defendant.

11
12

JAMES C. MAXEY,

13

No. 2:14-cv-205-TLN-CKD PS

Plaintiff,

14
15

No. 2:14-cv-204-GEB-KJN PS

v.
CHRISTINA MENDONSA,

16

Defendant.

17
18

JAMES C. MAXEY,
Plaintiff,

19
v.

20
21

No. 2:14-cv-207-KJM-DAD PS

VALERO GASOLINE STATIONS, INC.,
Defendant.

22
23
24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
14

1

JAMES C. MAXEY,

2

Plaintiff,

3
4

No. 2:14-cv-208-MCE-CKD PS

v.

RELATED CASE ORDER AND

HERITAGE OAKS HOSPITAL, INC.,

5

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

6
7

Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals that the actions are related within the

8

meaning of E.D. Cal. Local Rule 123. The actions involve similar claims and similar questions of

9

fact and law, and would therefore entail a substantial duplication of labor if heard by different

10

judges. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 123(a). Accordingly, the assignment of the matters to the same judge

11

is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort and is also likely to be convenient for the

12

parties.

13

The parties should be aware that relating the cases under Local Rules 123 merely has the

14

result that both actions are assigned to the same judge and magistrate judge; no consolidation of

15

the actions is affected.

16

A.

17

In each of the above-entitled actions, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona,

Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

18

plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff’s

19

declarations make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, the

20

requests to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

21

B.

22

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if

23

it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to

24

state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

25

defendant.

26

/////

27

/////

Screening of Plaintiff’s Complaints

28
15

1

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

2

520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it

3

fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.

4

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41

5

(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of

6

his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of

7

a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to

8

relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are

9

true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable

10

legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories.

11

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

12

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations

13

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976),

14

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the

15

plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy

16

the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2)

17

“requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

18

is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds

19

upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing

20

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).

21

The complaints filed in the above-entitled actions are almost identical, containing only

22

minor differences in each case. In each complaint, plaintiff alleges that the action arises from

23

“plaintiff being deprived the most basic rights guaranteed by the California and United States

24

Constitution and statutory law.” Plaintiff alleges that he is a resident of Carmichael, California,

25

and that he is unemployed and disabled due to the actions of the named defendant. Plaintiff

26

alleges that venue is appropriate in this district for each case because “numerous acts,

27

transactions, wrongs, and breaches of contract give rise to violations of civil and criminal law

28

described in this complaint [which] occurred within this county, state and other states.”
16

1

Each complaint also contains a section entitled “Allegations Applicable to All Causes of

2

Action.” This section consists of boilerplate created by plaintiff wherein he leaves blanks to later

3

fill in. This section appears in each complaint as follows:

4
5
6

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”].

7
8
9
10
11

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,

12

blackmailed, physically assaulted, falsely arrested, falsely convicted and falsely imprisoned the

13

plaintiff as part of an illegal conspiracy to suppress his rights under the U.S. Constitution.” Each

14

complaint also requests, among other things, that the court issue an order requiring the City of

15

Sacramento to “delay any planning or construction of any downtown sports arena, until the City

16

Council legally litigates . . . James C. Maxey v. Sacramento Kings (NBA) Inc.” In many of his

17

complaints, plaintiff requests one billion dollars in damages for his injuries.

18

Apart from the sheer number of complaints filed by plaintiff, his complaints name many different

19

defendants who--as best as can be gleaned from the complaints--appear to have nothing to do

20

with plaintiff, including the Country of Germany, Queen Elizabeth II, Dick Cheney, Eric Holder,

21

George Bush, Chevron Gas Stations, and the California Teachers Associations, just to name a

22

few. Plaintiff’s allegations include conclusory and unexplained assertions that the defendants in

23

each case blackmailed, falsely imprisoned, and physically assaulted him. However, the complaint

24

does not contain specific factual allegations showing any particular cause of action as to any

25

particular defendant. Nor does the complaint show how this court would have subject matter

26

jurisdiction over any such claim. Given the failure of the complaint to establish or even suggest a

27

legally cognizable claim, the court finds that all of plaintiff’s above captioned complaints are

28

frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (observing that a court has the
17

1

“power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose

2

factual contentions are clearly baseless,” which includes “claims describing fantastic or

3

delusional scenarios.”). Accordingly, the all of the above-entitled actions must be dismissed

4

without leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448

5

(9th Cir. 1987 (While the court ordinarily would permit a pro se plaintiff to amend, leave to

6

amend should not be granted where it appears amendment would be futile).

7

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

8

1. The above-entitled actions are reassigned to Judge Mendez and Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13

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.

14

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that:

15

1. Plaintiff’s complaints filed in the above-entitled cases be dismissed without leave to

16

amend; and

17

2. The Clerk be directed to close the above-entitled cases.

18

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

19

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

20

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

21

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

22

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

23

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

24

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

25

DATED: January 27, 2014.

26
27
28
18