Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01969/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01969-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILL MARTINEZ, No. CIV.S-05-1969 LKK DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER AND

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

PROBATION DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

____________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested

leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-

302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

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.

However, the one-page handwritten complaint submitted by

plaintiff is difficult to decipher. In its entirety it alleges as

follows:

Case 2:05-cv-01969-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 01/31/06 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

I want the courts to stop [their menacing]

behavior. I want the courts to compensate me in

the for[m] of money, freedom to work, [and/or]

collect my SSI and arrest the [psychotic] doctor,

that works in the [psych.] ward in Sacramento

[County].

No basis for federal jurisdiction is alleged in the complaint. 

Indeed, it appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

over this matter. 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 ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within twenty

days of the date that this order is filed why this matter should not

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

Civ. P. 12(h)(3); and

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01969-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 01/31/06 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

3. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to timely

comply with the terms of this order will result in a recommendation

that this action be dismissed.

DATED: January 30, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\martinez1969.ifp.osc

Case 2:05-cv-01969-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 01/31/06 Page 3 of 3