Pilkington v. Unknown

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 2/8/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN RE DAVID PILKINGTON 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

Case No: CV 10-80024-MISC CV 10-80025-MISC CV 10-80026-MISC CV 10-80027-MISC ORDER CLOSING ACTIONS

David Pilkington of Antioch, California, filed the four above-captioned actions on February 4, 2010. Each action appears to be related to an "attempted foreclosure" on one of four properties allegedly owned by Mr. Pilkington. The initial "complaint" in each case consists of an unsigned, half-inch thick filing that appears to be a dissertation on the faults of the mortgage lending industry, as opposed to a pleading under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Included in this compendium are copies of filings and/or orders issued in other mortgage cases pending in other state and federal courts. No specific claims are alleged against any party, no defendants are identified and no relief is sought in the instant filings. These submissions, which are identical except as the specification of the address of Mr. Pilkington's property, do not present a justiciable controversy, which is required for federal court jurisdiction. U.S.C.A. Const. art. 3. Rather, it is clear from the nature and content of Mr. Pilkington's filings that the purpose of his filings is to notify the Court of the allegedly fraudulent practices being employed by financial institutions and that reforms are necessary. However, absent factual allegations of harm specific to Mr. Pilkington for which specific individuals and/or entities are purportedly responsible, this Court is not the appropriate forum to address these general concerns. To the extent that Mr. Pilkington believes that criminal activity has taken place, he should notify the appropriate law enforcement authority. If he believes that legal reforms are necessary, the legislature is the more appropriate venue to address his concerns. The role of a federal court is preside over disputes between parties,

1 2 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

involving specific facts, claims, issues and litigants, in those cases where the Court has jurisdiction. That situation is not before this Court. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Clerk shall CLOSE Case Nos. CV 10-80024MISC, CV 10-80025-MISC, CV 10-80026-MISC and CV 10-80027-MISC and terminate any pending matters in those actions. This Order does not prevent Mr. Pilkington from filing a civil complaint, in either state court or federal court, against specifically-identified defendants seeking redress for harm inflicted directly upon him. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2010

_______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

-2-

1 2 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
-3-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE: 1006 AND 1008 G STREET ANTIOCH, CA, Plaintiff, v. IN RE: 1006 AND 1008 G STREET ANTIOCH, CA et al, Defendant. / Case Number: CV10-80024 SBA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on February 10, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

David Pilkington 101 Beede Way Antioch, CA 94509 Dated: February 10, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk