DAVIS v. US PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE

Filing 8

Entry Dismissing Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - It has come to the Court's attention that this matter lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. When it is determined that a court lacks jurisdiction, its onl y course of action is to announce that fact and dismiss the case. Judgment dismissing this action for lack of jurisdiction shall now be entered. All pending motions, dkts. 2 , 4 , 5 , and 6 , are denied as moot. (See Entry.) Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/7/2018.(NAD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
GENE THOMAS DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
US PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:18-cv-01267-TWP-TAB

Entry Dismissing Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction
and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
It has come to the Court’s attention that this matter lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. (“[A]
federal court generally may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining that it has
jurisdiction over the category of claim in suit (subject-matter jurisdiction) and the parties (personal
jurisdiction)” (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 93–102 (1998)));
Lewis v. Local Union No. 100 of Laborers' Int'l Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO, 750 F.2d 1368, 1377
n.11 (7th Cir. 1984). “Courts . . . have an independent obligation to determine whether subjectmatter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H
Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). For the reasons explained below, there is a complete absence of
a plausible federal claim alleged in the amended complaint and “[t]he Supreme Court has
frequently said that a suit which is frivolous does not invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
. . .” Crowley Cutlery Company v. United States, 849 F.2d 273 (7th Cir. 1988).
Plaintiff Gene Thomas Davis filed this civil action against the U.S. Presidential Task Force
(FBI/DEA) on April 26, 2018. He paid the full filing fee at that time. The complaint alleges that
Mr. Davis is a resident of Greenfield, Indiana. His complaint alleges the following:

Dkt. 1 at p. 2. In terms of relief, Mr. Davis seeks to “[f]ix the criminal legal system and restore our
equal rights.” Dkt. 1 at 4.
Attached to the complaint is a petition for discovery of evidence which asks the court for
“removal of criminally implanted Artificial Intelligence (AI) in left middle ear.” There are also
documents which reflect that Mr. Davis has the same or similar claims pending in the Hancock
Superior Court.
Finally, the record reflects that Mr. Davis has filed a motion for injunctive relief which
reflects that he believes that the defendant U.S. Presidential Task force is taping his conversations
through the “Artificial Intelligence” in his body. He writes:

Dkt. 6 at page 2.

“District judges have ample authority to dismiss frivolous or transparently defective suits
spontaneously, and thus save everyone time and legal expense. This is so even when the plaintiff
has paid all fees for filing and service.” Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 762 (7th Cir. 2003).
Dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because of the inadequacy of the federal claim is
proper only when the claim is “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this
Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” Steel Co.
v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (citing Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v.
County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974); Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.,
358 U.S. 354, 359 (1959)). That is the case here. Mr. Davis may genuinely believe that the United
States has a task force that implanted a device in his body and is currently listening to his
conversations but that belief is so implausible that it cannot be the basis of a federal claim.
When it is determined that a court lacks jurisdiction, its only course of action is to announce
that fact and dismiss the case. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94 (“‘Jurisdiction is power to declare the law,
and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact
and dismissing the cause.’”)(quoting Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868)).
Judgment dismissing this action for lack of jurisdiction shall now be entered. All pending
motions, dkts. [2], [4], [5], and [6], are denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: May 7, 2018

Distribution:
GENE THOMAS DAVIS
747 Streamside Drive
Greenfield, IN 46140