Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01808/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01808-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 31:3731 Fraud

---

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,

Plaintiff, No. CIV.S. 06-1808 DFL GGH PS

vs.

BANK OF AMERICA, ORDER

Defendant.

_______________________________/

On September 12, 2006, this court granted plaintiff leave to file, within thirty

days, an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis and an amended complaint

demonstrating this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. On September 20, 2006, plaintiff filed a

two-sentence inquiry that states in full: “I would like to know if I could transfer my Bank of

America Case #06-CV-01808 DFL GGH to Bankruptcy Court. I need file [sic] a new claim

against Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment.” 

This filing is not one contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As

plaintiff has yet to demonstrate this court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, the

court is without authority to transfer this case to another court. Moreover, the allegations of

Case 2:06-cv-01808-DFL-GGH Document 5 Filed 09/27/06 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

 As set forth in this court’s order filed September 12, 2006, “[t]he sixty-page complaint,

1

including exhibits, is set forth on a California Superior Court form and denoted an ‘amended

complaint.’ It is captioned both a ‘limited civil case’ under $10,000 and an ‘unlimited civil case’

exceeding $25,000. Defendant Bank of America is referenced as both a corporation and a

government agency. Plaintiff alleges breach of contract wherein she paid defendant $99 for a

Visa credit card; that she was unable to activate the card when she received it May 21, 2004,

because she was told by defendant’s customer service agent the card was already activated; that

by November 2004, defendant informed plaintiff the card was overdrawn by $1300; and that

plaintiff declines to make payment.”

plaintiff’s initial proposed complaint fail to demonstrate this action is one in bankruptcy.1

Finally, the allegations of plaintiff’s initial complaint do not preclude plaintiff from filing an

independent bankruptcy action or claim against the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment

Agency.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to transfer this

action, filed September 20, 2006, is denied.

So ordered.

DATED: 9/27/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOW6:Alfaro1808.trans

Case 2:06-cv-01808-DFL-GGH Document 5 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 2