Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01265/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01265-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

In addition to this case and several actions brought by the Internal Revenue 1

Service to enforce tax summonses, plaintiffs here are (or were) also involved in the following

other litigation in this district:

United States v. Carey, Case No. CV S-05-2176-MCE-CMK, pending; 

Carey v. IRS, Case No. CV S-98-1540-LKK-PAN, dismissed; and

Carey v. IRS, Case No. CV S-98-1539, LKK-PAN, dismissed.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL T. CAREY, et al., No. CIV S-06-1265-FCD-CMK

Plaintiffs, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SHASTA COUNTY,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiffs bring this civil action, invoking the court’s federal question jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Pending before the court is plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (Doc.

1

6), filed on June 9, 2006. The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners

seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

Case 2:06-cv-01265-FCD-CMK Document 7 Filed 08/17/06 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

 Plaintiffs specifically invoked the court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 2

U.S.C. § 1331 in their original complaint. That language has been deleted from the first

amended complaint.

2

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court is also required to screen complaints brought by litigants who

have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under these

screening provisions, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous

or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B)

and 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h), this court

must dismiss an action “[w]henever it appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject

matter . . . .” Because plaintiffs have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court

will screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant to Rule 12(h), the court will also

consider as a threshold matter whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction.

In their pro se first amended complaint, plaintiffs name as the only defendant

Shasta County. Plaintiffs assert no specific basis for jurisdiction. Plaintiffs allege that the 2

Shasta County Recorder – Cris Andrews – falsified the public record, thereby causing them

injury. They state that they presented a claim for $25,000,000.00 in damages to the Shasta

County Board of Supervisors, but that the claim was not paid. Plaintiffs seek to have this court

oversee a “. . . peaceful, judicial foreclosure and final settlement” of their damages claim. 

As to the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, there is nothing in the first amended

complaint to suggest a violation of any federal law or of plaintiffs’ rights under the federal

constitution. Nowhere in the complaint do plaintiffs cite to a federal statute or constitutional

provision. Rather, the first amended complaint references alleged fraud and potential violations

of state law. Plaintiffs were advised of these same defects with respect to their original

complaint, yet plaintiff’s have not cured this defect in their amended pleading. Thus, it does not

appear that federal question jurisdiction exists. 

Case 2:06-cv-01265-FCD-CMK Document 7 Filed 08/17/06 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 first amended complaint also references 28 U.S.C. §§ 2041 and 2042,

apparently as a basis for jurisdiction. Those provisions, however, govern the deposit and

withdrawal of moneys paid into the district court in the context of a pending or adjudicated

action. They do not, in and of themselves, provide a basis for this court to exercise its limited

subject matter jurisdiction. 

Put simply, and without commenting on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, this court

does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be

dismissed without prejudice to plaintiffs’ ability to seek relief from the appropriate state court

and/or agency.

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, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 16, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01265-FCD-CMK Document 7 Filed 08/17/06 Page 3 of 3