(PS) Wallace v. Lynch

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CLEVELAND WALLACE; RITA No. 2:20-cv-2265 TLN DB PS WALLACE, Claimant at Law, Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. ROSEMARY LYNCH, et al., 16 Defendants.

18 Plaintiffs Cleveland Wallace and Rita Wallace are proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1). On November 13, 2020, plaintiffs filed a complaint and paid the applicable filing fee.

21 (ECF No. 1.) Accordingly, summons were issued. (ECF Nos. 2 & 3.)

22 Plaintiffs have now filed a motion seeking an order requiring service by the United States Marshal, “[p]ursuant to Local Rule 4(3).” (ECF No. 5 at 1.) This court, however, has no Local Rule 4(3). Nor does plaintiffs’ motion providing any authority for the undersigned ordering service by the United States Marshal on behalf of a party not proceeding in forma pauperis.

26 Moreover, review of plaintiffs’ complaint finds that the allegations appear to be delusional. In this regard, the complaint alleges that plaintiffs are “Targeted Individuals” that “ran a foul of the Central Intelligence Agency by an involvement in a financial transaction | between the CIA and a Chinese politician.” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 5.) In 2013 the CIA | “blocked” plaintiffs “from moving” through the use of “easedroping and use of defamation[.]”

3 | Cd. at 7.) And the “CIA perpetrators are employing others to commit atrocities of using viruses | to infect [plaintiffs] with disease[.]” (id. at 11.)

5 Where a complaint is “obviously frivolous” the district court may dismiss the complaint, | even if the plaintiff has paid the filing fee. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. | 1984) (“A paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer federal subject matter | jurisdiction ... and may be dismissed sua sponte before service of process.”); see also Steel Co. | v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (“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.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); | Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000) (“[D]istrict | courts may dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte even when the plaintiff has paid the required | filing fee, just as the Court of Appeals may dismiss frivolous matters in like circumstances.”).

16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. Plaintiffs’ show cause in writing within fourteen days of the date of this order as to || why this action should not be dismissed as frivolous; and 19 2. Plaintiffs’ November 23, 2020 motion for service (ECF No. 5) is denied.

20 | Dated: April 5, 2021 3 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DLB:6 | DBiorders\orders.pro se\wallace2265.osc.ord