Wallace v. State of California

Filing 2

ORDER ON PRE-FILING REVIEW (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2011)

Wallace v. State of California

Doc. 2

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 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 incoherent, frivolous, and not properly brought in federal court. Judge Smith ordered pre-filing Plaintiff John William Wallace has submitted for this Court's pre-filing review a complaint filed against the United States. Upon review of the complaint, the Court finds that it fails to state any claim against defendant and DISMISSES this action with prejudice. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. / JOHN WILLIAM WALLACE, Plaintiff, No. C 11-80031 SI ORDER ON PRE-FILING REVIEW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

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

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 February 25, 2011, which names the United States as defendant. The complaint is unintelligible. The complaint is headed "NonPayment Annuitant." The complaint consists 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 nationalities and jurisdictions (e.g., Cantonese, Hmong, Nebraska, Oregon), "All Investments in Black Pin" for various categories of employees, a list of federal agencies and private companies, including the Department of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency, and Exxon Mobil, followed by a list of commodities and elements (e.g., iron, uranium). Plaintiff's papers are plainly insufficient to allege any claim against the United States 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 may not be filed and 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: March 4, 2011 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

2