Wallace v. United States Department of Defense

Filing 2


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendant. / JOHN WILLIAM WALLACE, Plaintiff, No. C 10-80192 SI ORDER ON PRE-FILING REVIEW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff John William Wallace has submitted for this Court's pre-filing review a complaint filed against the United States Department of Defense. Upon review of the complaint, the Court finds that it fails to state any claim against defendant and DISMISSES this action with prejudice. DISCUSSION Plaintiff filed a total of twelve actions against the United States in this district between March and July of 2004, eight of which were filed in forma pauperis. All of the actions pertained to plaintiff's effort to obtain "original title" to various parcels of real estate, some of which were outside California. After orders of dismissal were entered in almost every case, the actions were eventually related and assigned to the Honorable Fern Smith, a former judge of this district. The United States made a motion for an order requiring pre-filing review of any future complaint submitted by plaintiff which named the United States as a defendant. After holding a conference with the parties, Judge Smith granted the United States' motion, finding that plaintiff had abused the in forma pauperis procedure by filing multiple, duplicative lawsuits without disclosing his filing history, and that all of plaintiff's filings were 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 incoherent, frivolous, and not properly brought in federal court. Judge Smith ordered pre-filing review "of any papers presented by John William Wallace for filing that name the United States as a defendant." Now before the Court for pre-filing review is a complaint lodged on August 2, 2010, which names the United States Department of Defense as defendant. The complaint is headed "Identification Plate Clear." The first four pages of the complaint, which are almost verbatim copies of one another, consist of streams of words separated by commas, semicolons or colons. The stream begins with a list of words for forms of money or compensation ("Investments, Interest, U.S. Currency, Legal, Tender, Awards, Grants, Notes, Bonds, Securities, Pay, Wages, Salary, Stock, T Bills, Tips"). The complaint then lists a number of federal agencies and private companies, including the Department of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency, and Exxon Mobil, followed by a listing of every article and amendment of the United States Constitution and the names of several statutes. Next, the complaint lists the names of people and places ("Brad Lavy, Molly Lavy, Mollie Getty, Julian Lennon"; "Washington; California; Florida: Maine: Washington D.C. District of Columbia: Texas: Oregon") but does not explain who the people are, whether any allegations are being asserted against them, or the significance of the places. Finally, plaintiff repeats the monetary terms from the start of the page. The fifth and final page of the complaint contains a description of a parcel of land apparently located in Franklin County, Washington, plus a repeat of some of the words stated on the first four pages. Plaintiff's papers are plainly insufficient to allege any claim against the United States Department of Defense or any other defendant. Plaintiff has made no attempt to allege a single fact or event, or even to explain what, if anything, he is seeking through this lawsuit. There is no basis on which to find that any response to plaintiff's rambling and incoherent papers is warranted. The complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. The clerk is directed to close the case, and no further filings will be accepted in this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 11, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?