Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00251/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00251-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YVONNE HOLDEN, No. CIV.S-05-0251 LKK DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER AND

LAURA K. LUCIER, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendants.

____________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested

leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302(21),

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to

proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

According to the complaint, plaintiff, who resides in

Placer County, is suing her neighbor in connection with a dispute

regarding plaintiff’s maintenance of livestock, namely roosters and

Case 2:05-cv-00251-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 10/05/05 Page 1 of 3
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

1 The numerous documents attached to plaintiff’s complaint

suggest that this matter originated as a small claims action in

Placer County where the defendant here, Ms. Lucier, sued plaintiff

regarding plaintiff’s failure to properly maintain chickens and

roosters on her property. Those documents further suggest that the

small claims action was litigated to completion in Placer County

Superior Court with the matter being resolved in Ms. Lucier’s favor. 

To the extent plaintiff seeks review of that resolution, plaintiff is

advised that a federal district court does not have jurisdiction to

review errors in state court decisions. Dist. of Columbia Court of

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity

Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923). 

2

chickens, on her property. The caption of the complaint lists the

following purported causes of action: “terrorism; pet theft

harassment; property damage; trespass; vandalism; assault by dogs;

extortion; illegal lien; stalking; pet killing; dogs attacking

livestock.” (Compl. at 1.) However, no basis for federal

jurisdiction is alleged. Indeed, it appears that the court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and that plaintiff’s

claims are more properly pursued in state court.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within twenty

(20) days of the date this order is filed why this case should not be

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(h)(3)(“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or

otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter,

the court shall dismiss the action.”); and

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00251-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 10/05/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

3. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to timely

comply with the terms of this order will result in a recommendation

that this action be dismissed.

DATED: October 4, 2005.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\holden0251.ifp.osc

Case 2:05-cv-00251-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 10/05/05 Page 3 of 3