Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02645/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02645-1/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

JESSE VIZCAINO, JR. No. CIV.S-05-2645 GEB DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Defendant.

____________________________/

By an order filed May 1, 2006, plaintiff, who is proceeding

pro se, was ordered to show cause in writing within twenty days why

this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). 

Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed. As explained in that

order, plaintiff’s complaint consists of an unintelligible 

hodge-podge of more than 200 pages of documents. No basis for

federal jurisdiction is alleged. Indeed, it appears that the court

Case 2:05-cv-02645-GEB-DAD Document 4 Filed 06/07/06 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

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”). The twenty-day period has now expired and

plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

dismissed. See 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).

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)(l). Within twenty days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 

written objections with the court. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02645-GEB-DAD Document 4 Filed 06/07/06 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

he District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

DATED: June 6, 2006.

DAD:lg

vizcaino2645.f&r.dism

Case 2:05-cv-02645-GEB-DAD Document 4 Filed 06/07/06 Page 3 of 3