Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01614/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01614-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

MIKA CHRISTINA ALFARO, No. CIV.S-06-1614 MCE DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TURNING POINT PROGRAM,

Defendant.

____________________________/

By order filed November 13, 2006, the court granted

plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and directed

plaintiff to show cause in writing why this matter should not be

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

P. 12(h)(3). In response, plaintiff filed a state court form answer

for use in a contract action. Plaintiff’s remarks on that form are

non-responsive to the court’s order to show cause. Nor is the brief

handwritten declaration filed by plaintiff on December 5, 2006,

responsive to the order. In that declaration, plaintiff appears to

complain about the theft of certain property from her room at a

Case 2:06-cv-01614-MCE -DAD Document 16 Filed 12/27/06 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

2

facility operated by a local non-profit mental health services

agency. In any event, no basis for federal jurisdiction over this

action is apparent based on anything plaintiff has filed with the

court. Thus, the undersigned finds that the court lacks subject

matter jurisdiction. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682

(recognizing that a claim is subject to dismissal for want of

jurisdiction where it is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” and “so

patently without merit”); Hagans v. Levine, 415 U.S. 528, 543

(stating that a claim may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where

it is “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions

of this Court or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to

involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the District

Court”). See also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 (9th Cir.

1984)(“A paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer

federal subject matter jurisdiction and may be dismissed sua sponte

before service of process.”)(citations omitted)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be

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

P. 12(h)(3).

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 (10) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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.” Plaintiff is

Case 2:06-cv-01614-MCE -DAD Document 16 Filed 12/27/06 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

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 26, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\alfaro1614.f&r

Case 2:06-cv-01614-MCE -DAD Document 16 Filed 12/27/06 Page 3 of 3