Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01595/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01595-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 This Court has been informed that plaintiff has been escorted from the this Court’s building.

1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEVAN KAYAIAN, CASE NO. CV F 06-1595 OWW LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Sevan Kayaian (“plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis and on November

8, 2006, filed an untitled document which this Court construes as a complaint (“complaint”), the

purported caption of which appears to list the United States of America as defendant. The complaint

is generally unintelligible and states: “Being poor and not voting does not mean we will sit bad [sic] and

let you mistreat us!” The complaint further states:

Driving they say is a privilege not a right. How about entering the Federal Building?

According to the U.S. Marshals, that too is a privilege not a right. What is happening to

this country? 

1

Case 1:06-cv-01595-OWW -LJO Document 6 Filed 11/28/06 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

27

28

2

The complaint requests “respect all people as it should be. Even us with-out [sic] money.”

The magistrate judge issued November 13, 2006 findings and recommendations to dismiss this

action without prejudice on grounds that: (1) the complaint fails to establish this Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction; (2) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and (3) a further

attempt at amendment is unwarranted based on the complaint’s unintelligible statements and apparent

attempts to vex. On November 16, 2006, plaintiff filed what this Court construes as objections to the

findings and recommendations. The objections are rambling, generally unintelligible, appear to confront

the magistrate judge and U.S. Marshals, and fail to address the findings and recommendations. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. After

evaluating the record, this Court finds the magistrate judge’s November 13, 2006 findings and

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, this Court:

1. ADOPTS in full the magistrate judge’s November 13, 2006 findings and

recommendations;

2. DISMISSES this action without prejudice on grounds that: (1) the complaint fails to

establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction; (2) the complaint fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted; and (3) a further attempt at amendment is unwarranted

based on the complaint’s unintelligible statements and apparent attempts to vex; and

3. DIRECTS this Court’s clerk to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 24, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01595-OWW -LJO Document 6 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 2