Maxey v. United States of America et al

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/11/2015 ORDERING 1 Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief and/or a temporary restraining order is DENIED. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMES C. MAXEY,

8
9
10
11

No. 2:15-cv-01243-GEB-EFB

Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and
DOES 1-99,

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Defendants.

12
13
On

14

June

11,

2015,

Plaintiff,

proceeding

in

propria

15

persona, filed an ex parte motion for injunctive relief and a

16

temporary

17

“placement

18

“compelling

19

government’s

20

Remote Neural Monitoring . . . involuntary human experimentation,

21

human trafficking, slavery, and forced labor.” (Pl.’s Mot. 13:6,

22

13:16-14:16, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also seeks in his motion an

23

order of “mandatory forfeiture of public office, imprisonment,

24

and fines” against “several public employees such as President

25

Barak Obama, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Senator Barbara Boxer,

26

Senator

27

Representative Ami Bera, State Attorney General Kamala D. Harris,

28

Former District Attorney Jan Scully, District Attorney Ann Marie

restraining
.

.
the

.

order

in

United

‘protective
States

state-sponsored

Dianne

(“TRO”),

Feinstein,

to

torture

in

which

custody,’”

.

.

.

seeks

and

immediately

Representative[]

1

he

an

his

order

suspend

the

surveillance

and

Doris

Matsui,

1

Schubert

2

requested relief is based on Plaintiff’s following allegations:

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

and

Sheriff

Scott

Jones.”

(Id.

at

13:8-13.)

The United States has fraudulently concealed
the fact that as an infant, physicians with
the
United
States
Air
Force
(father’s
employer)
surgically
inserted
“satellite
microchip
implant
technology”
into
the
Plaintiff’s brain, eyes and body. Under
anesthesia, an incision was made in the
Plaintiff’s scalp and a hole drilled in his
skull. The microchip implant device was
placed on the surface of the brain. From on,
or about January 21, 1978, through the
present time, the United States and State of
California has subjected the Plaintiff to
state-sponsored torture, electronic shock
treatment, remote-delivered radiation and
electronic signals laser beamed into the
Plaintiff’s head, body, arms, legs and
groin. . . .
. . . .
The United States has conspired with
county, state and federal law enforcement
agencies [to] impose[] (24 hour a day) Remote
Neural
Monitoring,
surveillance
and
observation of the Plaintiff’s belongings,
person and surroundings through the use of
electronic
listening
devices,
video
recording, special imaging and every other
means
of
tracking
and
monitoring
the
Plaintiff’s
every
movements
inside
and
outside of his residence.
. . . .
This
Court
failed
to
protect
the
Plaintiff
from
the
accused
Defendants’
community-wide “witch hunt,” death threats,
physical violence, obstruction of justice,
false
arrest,
false
imprisonment,
false
conviction, assault with a deadly weapon,
fraudulent
concealment,
public
slander,
public
defamation
of
character,
electromagnetic
torture,
unwarranted
surveillance,
harassment,
coercion,
intimidation and physical retaliation. . . .
. . . Plaintiff’s (estranged) family
members . . . have secretly met with the
Plaintiff’s employers, friends and associates
to
defame,
slander
and
fraudulently
2

This

1

misrepresent the Plaintiff . . . . In each
case, the Plaintiff was illegally terminated
from his employment.

2
3
4

(Id.

at

9:12-22,

5

omitted).)
To

6

obtain

10:21-26,

12:1-26

injunctive

(paragraph

relief,

numbering

Plaintiff

must

7

demonstrate, inter alia, that “he is likely to succeed on the

8

merits of his claim[s].” Fyock v. Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991, 995

9

(9th Cir. 2015). Here, Plaintiff cannot do so based on such

10

inherently implausible and conclusory allegations. See Loop AI

11

Labs, Inc. v. Gatti, No. 15-cv-00798-HSG, 2015 WL 1090180, at *3

12

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2015) (“Conclusory allegations alone are not

13

sufficient

14

merits.”); accord Solomon v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, No. 2:12-

15

00209 WBS KJN, 2012 WL 4747151, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2012).

16

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief and/or a

17

temporary restraining order is DENIED.

18

Dated:

to

demonstrate

a

likelihood

June 11, 2015

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

of

success

on

the