Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03856/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03856-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARLENE CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 07-3856 MEJ

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RE: PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Arlene Campbell's Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis, filed July 27, 2007. As this case has been randomly assigned to a magistrate judge,

the undersigned requested that Plaintiff file the necessary consent to magistrate jurisdiction or

request for reassignment to a district judge. (Doc. #4.) To date, Plaintiff has not complied with this

Court's order. Accordingly, the undersigned is without jurisdiction to rule on Plaintiff's application

and ORDERS the Clerk of Court to reassign this case to a district judge. 

The district court may authorize a plaintiff to file an action in federal court without

prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable to

pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). When a complaint is filed in forma

pauperis, it must be dismissed prior to service of process if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a

claim, or seeks monetary damages from defendants who are immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C. §

Case 4:07-cv-03856-SBA Document 5 Filed 08/20/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1915(e)(2); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226-27 (9th Cir. 1984). When a

complaint is dismissed under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint

with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the

deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.

1995). 

In the present case, the undersigned finds that Campbell's complaint fails to state a claim

because she fails to allege any basis for federal jurisdiction over the instant action, fails to

adequately set forth the factual and legal basis of her claim(s), and fails to set forth the type of relief

she seeks from the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (requiring that complaint set forth “a short and

plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends,” “a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and “a demand for judgment for

the relief the pleader seeks”). Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Court

dismiss Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that the

District Court permit Plaintiff one month from the date her complaint is dismissed to file an

amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within that time, the undersigned

RECOMMENDS that the District Court dismiss the above-titled action with prejudice.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a party may serve and file objections to this

Report and Recommendation within 10 days after being served with a copy of said report.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.

Dated: August 20, 2007 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03856-SBA Document 5 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARLENE CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY HALL et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-03856 MEJ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on August 20, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

Arlene Campbell

1388 Haight Street, #8

San Francisco, CA 94117

Dated: August 20, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Brenda Tolbert, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-03856-SBA Document 5 Filed 08/20/07 Page 3 of 3