Schneider v. Unknown named Government of U.S.A

• Court: District Court, D. Alaska
• Decided: March 31, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00275
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

LUCAS CANTON SCHNEIDER, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:24-cv-00275-RRB v. UNKNOWN NAMED GOVERNMENT OF U.S.A., Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL On December 17, 2024, self-represented litigant Lucas Canton Schneider (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint, a civil cover sheet, an application to proceed without paying the filing fee, and a motion for an emergency injunction.1 Plaintiff claims that since June 2014, unknown government officials have conspired against him,

harassed him, poisoned him, and “put a death order” on him.2 For relief, Plaintiff seeks $12 million in damages, his rights reinstated, a declaration that he will be left alone, access to medical treatment, and for a hearing about the 2014 house fire investigation.3 The Court now has screened Plaintiff’s Complaint in accordance with

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. Upon review, the Complaint fails to state a

1 Dockets 1–4. 2 Docket 1 at 3. 3 Docket 1 at 5. plausible claim for relief and his claims appear to be time-barred by the statute of limitations.4 Further, the Court finds this case both frivolous and duplicative of prior lawsuits that have been dismissed as frivolous.5 The Court takes judicial notice of

the federal lawsuits filed by Plaintiff containing similar allegations that have been dismissed by the Court of an ongoing conspiracy by unnamed individuals.6 Plaintiff may not repeatedly file claims that previously have been dismissed with prejudice.7 Therefore, this case must be DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed without prepaying the filing fee at Docket 3 is DENIED as moot. 3. Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency injunction at Docket 4 is DENIED

as moot.

4 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). See also Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1024–25 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal of pro se complaint upon screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, in part, because prisoner’s complaint, on its face, appeared to be untimely and barred by the applicable statute of limitations). 5 Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation and quotation omitted). 6 See, e.g., Schneider v. Unknown Named F.B.I. Agent(s), Case No. 3:23-cv-00261-JMK (dismissing claims against unnamed FBI agents); Schneider v. Winkelman, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-284-JMK, Docket 13 (denying Plaintiff’s motion to add unnamed federal authorities—allegedly involved in a conspiracy to conduct medical experimentation, prevent him from accessing medical care, and assist the state criminal courts in violating his rights—as defendants in his case). 7 Amina v. WMC Finance Co., 329 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (2018). 4. Plaintiff must not file any future claims for which he lacks a sufficient legal or factual basis or any claims that previously have been dismissed with

prejudice. 5. The Clerk shall issue a final judgment and close this case. DATED this 31st day of March, 2025, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Ralph R. Beistline RALPH R. BEISTLINE Senior United States District Judge