Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01969/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01969-1/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

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

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

PROBATION DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

_______________________/

By order filed January 31, 2006, plaintiff was ordered to

show cause in writing within twenty days why this case should not be

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As explained in

that order, plaintiff’s one-page handwritten complaint alleges in its

entirety as follows:

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].

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01969-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 03/06/06 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

No basis for federal jurisdiction is alleged in the complaint.

Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to respond to the court’s order

would result in a recommendation of dismissal. The twenty-day period

has expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

dismissed for lack of 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).

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 ten 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-01969-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 03/06/06 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

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

Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 3, 2006.

DAD:lg:th

Ddad1/orders.prose/martinez1969.f&r

Case 2:05-cv-01969-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 03/06/06 Page 3 of 3