# Obama > District Court, E.D. California · May 5, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11382224 ## Case - **Full name:** Christopher Todd Johnson v. Barack Hussein Obama - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** May 5, 2026 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11382224 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CHRISTOPHER TODD JOHNSON, No. 2:26-cv-0616 DC AC PS 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Pre-trial proceedings are accordingly referred 17 to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff filed a request for leave to proceed in 18 forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and has submitted the affidavit required by 19 that statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 20 I. Screening 21 A. Legal Standard 22 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 23 complete the inquiry required by the statute. The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to 24 dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which 25 relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 26 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether the complaint is 27 frivolous, by drafting the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 28 (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a 1 “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed 2 in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is 3 entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the 4 relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and 5 directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 6 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 7 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 8 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 9 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 10 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 11 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 12 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 13 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 14 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 15 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 16 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 17 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 18 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 19 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 20 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 21 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 22 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must 23 allege enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 24 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 25 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 26 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 27 A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 28 opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See 1 Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as 2 stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 3 B. The Complaint 4 Plaintiff alleges that defendant, politician Barack Obama, violated the law by engaging in 5 felonious wiretapping, gross privacy invasion, and humiliation of plaintiff. ECF No. 1 at 4. 6 Plaintiff alleges that at his parents’ house, his telephone use is limited, and defendant’s 7 wiretapping and gross privacy invasions have left him isolated and unable to talk to friends. Id. at 8 5. Defendant’s long-term violation of plaintiff’s privacy has left him without gainful employment 9 for 20 years. Id. at 6. Plaintiff asks for an injunction against Barack Obama to stop the 10 wiretapping, and for monetary relief. Id. at 6. He also filed a motion for a temporary restraining 11 order. ECF No. 3. 12 C. Analysis 13 The complaint does not contain facts supporting any cognizable legal claim against the 14 defendant. The court finds that the complaint consists entirely of fanciful and delusional 15 allegations with no basis in law and no plausible supporting facts. See ECF No. 1. The contents 16 of the complaint are sufficiently distant from a plausible reality to make it clear that leave to 17 amend in this case would not be fruitful. The undersigned will therefore recommend that the 18 complaint be dismissed. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 3) should 19 likewise be denied as frivolous. 20 II. Pro Se Plaintiff’s Summary 21 Your motions to proceed without paying the filing fees are being granted, and you do not 22 have to pay the filing fee. However, the Magistrate Judge has determined that your complaint 23 cannot be served because it does not state any legal claim that the court can help with. The 24 Magistrate Judge is recommending that your case be dismissed. You have 21 days to file an 25 objection to this recommendation. 26 III. Conclusion 27 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s application to 28 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. ] Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the complaint (ECF No. 1) and the 2 | motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 3) be DISMISSED as frivolous. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).. Within twenty-one days 5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 6 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 7 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 8 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 9 | (th Cir. 1991). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 | DATED: May 4, 2026 12 Z □ ee eer 13 ALLISON CLAIRE 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11382224. Public record. Not legal advice.