Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07414/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07414-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BETTY P. ELGAR,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 06-7414 PJH 

v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL

ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Pro se plaintiff Betty Elgar filed a five-page letter setting forth her “concerns” about

various subjects on December 4, 2006. The letter was construed by the Clerk’s Office as a

complaint. She also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On January 8,

2007, the court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and denied the

IFP request because the “complaint” was incomprehensible and failed to set forth any basis

for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction or any legal theory or claim for relief. 

The dismissal was with leave to amend and included notice to plaintiff of the deficiencies of

her complaint. 

Within the time provided for the filing of the amended complaint, plaintiff submitted

another letter in which she requested an “appeal of a motion of the Alameda Unified School

District of order dismissing complaint and denying request to proceed in forma pauperis.” 

The school district has not been served with plaintiff’s “complaint” nor has it filed any

motion. As the time has passed for plaintiff to file an amended complaint, the court

construes this second letter, which was timely filed, as an amendment. The second letter is

also incomprehensible and it is impossible to discern the legal theories under which she

seeks relief, or even what relief she seeks. Moreover, it is impossible to determine if this

court has jurisdiction to adjudicate any claim that plaintiff may be attempting to assert.

Case 4:06-cv-07414-PJH Document 5 Filed 02/13/07 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

Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim and for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-07414-PJH Document 5 Filed 02/13/07 Page 2 of 2