Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00217/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00217-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

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

FABIAN MORALES, No. CIV.S-05-0217 WBS DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER AND

MARIA J. OCHOA, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

By order dated October 20, 2005, plaintiff, proceeding pro

se, was directed to properly complete and file an amended in forma

pauperis application or pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00. 

Plaintiff also was directed to show cause in writing why this matter

should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff has timely filed an amended in forma pauperis

application. 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.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00217-WBS-DAD Document 5 Filed 12/06/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

However, the required time has expired and plaintiff has

not responded to the order to show cause. As previously observed by

the undersigned, plaintiff’s complaint indicates that he is

attempting to sue two individuals regarding breach of “a verbal

contract when we buy the house” located in Fairfield, California. 

Such a breach of contract claim is more properly pursued in state

court. This court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. 

Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure

to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 5, 2005.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\morales.f&r

Case 2:05-cv-00217-WBS-DAD Document 5 Filed 12/06/05 Page 2 of 2