Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02646/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02646-0/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

JESSE VIZCAINO, JR. No. CIV.S-05-2646 DFL DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER AND

US PTO, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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, plaintiff’s complaint consists of an

unintelligible hodge-podge of more than 50 pages of documents. Many

of the documents are poor photocopies which are not legible. The

Case 2:05-cv-02646-DFL-DAD Document 3 Filed 05/01/06 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

identity of the only named defendant, “US PTO,” is unclear. Nor is

any basis for federal jurisdiction alleged. 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 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-02646-DFL-DAD Document 3 Filed 05/01/06 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: April 28, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\vizcaino2646.ifp.osc

Case 2:05-cv-02646-DFL-DAD Document 3 Filed 05/01/06 Page 3 of 3