Walker v. United States of America et al

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
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PATRICK DUANE WALKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-01513-SKO
FIRST SCREENING ORDER
(Doc. 1)
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Patrick Duane Walker is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action.
(Docs. 2, 3.) 	Upon reviewing his complaint, the undersigned concludes that it fails to state any
cognizable claims.
Plaintiff has the following options as to how to proceed. 	He may file an amended
complaint, which the Court will screen in due course. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a statement
with the Court stating that he wants to stand on this complaint and have it reviewed by the
presiding district judge, in which case the undersigned will issue findings and recommendations
to the district judge consistent with this order. If Plaintiff does not file anything, the undersigned
will recommend that the case be dismissed.
I. 	SCREENING REQUIREMENT
In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to
screen each case and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation
of poverty is untrue, or that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th
Cir. 1995) (district court has discretion to dismiss in forma pauperis complaint); Barren v.
Case 1:25-cv-01513-KES-SKO Document 4 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 6

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
2
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a
claim). 	If the Court determines that a complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be
granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading
standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” 	Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of
a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A
complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim based on (1) the lack of
a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri
v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). The plaintiff must allege a minimum
factual and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give each defendant fair notice of what
the plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. See, e.g., Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of
Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).
In reviewing the pro se complaint, the Court is to liberally construe the pleadings and
accept as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007). The Court, however, need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678. 	“Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s
liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) (internal quotation marks omitted).
II. 	SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff drafted his complaint using the general civil complaint form provided by this
Court. 	The complaint names United States of America, former President of the United States
Joseph R. Biden, and current President of the United States Donald Trump as defendants. (Doc. 1
at 1, 2.) Plaintiff states that subject matter jurisdiction is based on federal question. (Id. at 3.) In
the section in which Plaintiff is asked to indicate which of his federal constitutional or federal
Case 1:25-cv-01513-KES-SKO Document 4 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 6

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
statutory rights have been violated, Plaintiff writes “my right to live, my right to privacy, the right
for protection from my government!” (Id. at 4.)
The statement of claim section of the complaint states: “I went to my local law they did
nothing. I wrote 9 letters to the White House and did not get any help. It has been a U.S. satellite
doing damage for years.” (Id. at 5.) In handwritten addenda attached to the complaint, Plaintiff
states:
For the last 19 years of my life there has been a satellite locked on my
dad’s home and on me. I have proof of pictures and videos of it going on
of burns and bruises all over my body after 19 years of being beat on by a
United States owned satellite.
[. . .]
The fact is the U.S. broke the treaty of 1967 of no weapons in space and
what’s worse is letting the cops and my family use “voice to skull” and
“manipulation of the nervous system” on me . . . . I know the Taft
California city cops and sheriffs are involved right along with Chester
Walker and family also Mike Walker and family and my government gave
these people the means to use satellites on U.S. citizens as a weapon.
[. . .]
I used to walk the streets trying to keep the satellites off my dogs but
whom ever was operating that satellite still killed all 3 dogs. It has been a
rough 19 years of a person talking into my mind and pushing my body
around also.
(Doc. 1 at 8, 9.)
Regarding the relief sought, Plaintiff writes, “After years of burns and 3 dead dogs and the
law did nothing while a terrorist attacked me daily.” 	(Doc. 1 at 6.) 	He seeks “156.3 trillion
dollars” for “pain suffering and my 3 dead dogs,” as well as “for the government not doing their
jobs and allowing this to go on for 19 years.” (Id. at 6, 7.) The Civil Cover Sheet describes the
cause of action as “gross negligence by the United States/satellite owner.” (Doc. 1-1.)
III. 	DISCUSSION
For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the complaint does not state any
cognizable claims. Plaintiff shall be provided with the legal standards that appear to apply to his
claim and will be granted an opportunity to file an amended complaint to correct the identified
Case 1:25-cv-01513-KES-SKO Document 4 Filed 12/01/25 Page 3 of 6

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
4
deficiencies.
A. 	Suit Against the United States and Presidents
Plaintiff names as defendants the United States and Presidents Biden and Trump. 	“Suits
against the federal government are barred for lack of subject matter jurisdiction unless the
government expressly and unequivocally waives its sovereign immunity.” Mills v. United States,
742 F.3d 400, 404 (9th Cir. 2014). Without a waiver, sovereign immunity bars both equitable and
legal claims against the United States, its agencies, and its officers acting in their official
capacities. See Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck Indian Reservation v. Bd. Of Oil & Gas
Cons. Of State of Mont., 792 F.2d 782, 792 (9th Cir. 1986). 	“Any waiver of immunity must be
‘unequivocally expressed,’ and any limitations and conditions upon the waiver ‘must be strictly
observed and exceptions thereto are not to be implied.’” Hodge v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 705, 707 (9th
Cir. 1997) (quoting Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160-61 (1981).) 	The party suing the
United States bears the burden of identifying an unequivocal waiver of immunity. See Holloman
v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1983).
The complaint is devoid of any allegations that would enable the Court to determine the
basis by which Plaintiff could sue the United States or Presidents Biden or Trump in their official
capacities.
B. 	Federal Tort Claims Act
The Civil Cover Sheet, however, references “gross negligence” by the United States. The
Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) “render[s] the Government liable in tort as a private
individual would be under like circumstances.” 	See Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 6
(1962). 	To assert an FTCA claim against the United States, a claimant must first “present[] the
claim to the appropriate Federal agency . . . .” 	28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). 	In addition, “[t]he United
States is the only proper defendant in an FTCA action.” 	Lance v. United States, 70 F.3d 1093,
1095 (9th Cir. 1995).
Plaintiff cannot bring a claim under the FTCA against Presidents Biden and Trump and,
because he has not pleaded that he exhausted his administrative remedies before any federal
agency, his complaint does not state an FTCA claim against the United States.
Case 1:25-cv-01513-KES-SKO Document 4 Filed 12/01/25 Page 4 of 6

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
5
C. 	Constitutional Claims
To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to assert a violation of his constitutional rights by
federal or state officials (see Doc. 1 at 4, 8), such a claim would arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(“Section 1983”), or in the alternative, under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 	Section 1983 “creates a cause of action against any
person who, acting under color of state law, abridges ‘rights, privileges, or immunities secured by
the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.” 	Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d
932, 936 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). 	A Bivens claim allows an individual to
bring a private cause of action against federal officials for violations of their constitutional rights.
See Bivens, 403 U.S. at 390–91.
Plaintiff’s allegations as pleaded fail to state a claim under Section 1983 or Bivens.
Plaintiff does not allege that he ever physically encountered any federal or state official. 	He
instead appears to assert he was injured by being subjected to a satellite “locked” on him and by
“voice to skull” and “manipulation of the nervous system.” 	Even if the undersigned took these
implausible allegations as true, Plaintiff has not alleged how any federal or state official violated
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
D. 	Leave to Amend
The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it fails to state any cognizable
claims. 	Under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he court should freely
give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” 	Accordingly, the Court will provide Plaintiff
with time to file an amended complaint so he can provide additional factual allegations against
defendants who are amenable to suit and demonstrate why this case should not be barred by the
statute of limitations or stayed in favor of state court proceedings. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130.
Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 	If Plaintiff
chooses to amend his complaint, in his amended complaint he must state what each named
defendant did that led to the deprivation of his constitutional or other federal rights. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Jones, 297 F.3d at 934.
Plaintiff is further advised that an amended complaint supersedes all prior complaints filed
Case 1:25-cv-01513-KES-SKO Document 4 Filed 12/01/25 Page 5 of 6

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
6
in an action, Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012), and must be
“complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” E.D. Cal. Local Rule
220. 	Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the
involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First Amended Complaint,”
refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury.
Although Plaintiff has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not for the purpose of changing
the nature of this suit or adding unrelated claims. 	George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.
2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).
Plaintiff has a choice on how to proceed. 	Plaintiff may file an amended complaint as
described above, which will be screened in due course. 	Alternatively, Plaintiff may choose to
stand on his complaint subject to the undersigned issuing findings and recommendations to a
district judge consistent with this order. Lastly, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal.
IV. 	ORDER
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either:
a. 	File a First Amended Complaint;
b. 	Notify the Court in writing that he wants to stand on the current complaint;
or
c. 	File a notice of voluntary dismissal.
2. 	If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the
amended complaint “First Amended Complaint” and refer to case number 1:25-cv-
01513-SKO.
3. 	Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 	December 1, 2025 	/s/ Sheila K. Oberto 	.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01513-KES-SKO Document 4 Filed 12/01/25 Page 6 of 6