Opinion
23-cv-06068-JSW
02-08-2024
JESSE F. SWARTZ, Plaintiff, v. DEMOCRATIC PARTY, et al., Dpfpndantq
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING PENDING MOTIONS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 3, 13, 15
JEFFREY S. WHITE United States District Judge
Plaintiff Jesse F. Swartz, a.k.a. Franklin H. Wright (hereinafter Swartz/Wright), at the time an inmate in Alameda County Jail, submitted to the Court for filing a “petition for injunctive relief” (ECF No. 1) (“Complaint”). The clerk filed the Complaint opened the above-titled case and filed the Complaint.
On June 13, 2016, the Court issued a pre-filing order regarding cases filed by Franklin H. Wright, a.k.a. Jesse Swartz. See Case No. 16-cv-00505 (ECF No. 27). The pre-filing order states that, if Swartz/Wright seeks to file an action that is related to certain subject matters or legal theories, “it will not be filed unless it presents cognizable claims.” (Id. at 2.) The subject matters or legal theories are: (1) Violation of some duty owed; (2) Mention of the Federal Tort Claims Act or attachment of Federal Tort Claims Act “claim letters”; (3) Other cases previously filed in federal courts; (4) Requests to compel any defendant to answer questions, perform investigations or evaluate policy proposals; (5) “Obstruction” of Swartz/Wright's legal process; or (6) Conspiracies to “train” Swartz/Wright. (Id. at 1-2.)
In the Complaint, Swartz/Wright asserts claims connected to a prior federal case and alleges the judge in that case “es muy malo persona.” (ECF No. 1 at 3; see also ECF No. 15 at 4:22-5:7 (seeking “payment from Northern District of California” for work performed in prior federal cases).) Because Plaintiff's claims relate to at least one of the subject matters mentioned in the pre-filing order, it may not be filed unless it presents cognizable claims. The Court has reviewed the Complaint, and it presents no cognizable claims. Therefore, the Court finds the Complaint to have been filed, and this case to have been opened, based upon inadvertent administrative error.
This translates to “is a very bad person.”
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED as having been inadvertently opened in error. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and all other pending motions are DENIED. No fee is due. No further filing shall be entertained in this action, and the Clerk shall close the file.
This order resolves ECF Nos. 2, 3, 13, 15.
IT IS SO ORDERED.