Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00363/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00363-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

 This action was initially assigned to District Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. By order filed 1

March 28, 2007, Judge Damrell recused himself, and the case was reassigned to District Judge

Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKA CHRISTINA ALFARO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0363 GEB DAD PS 1

vs.

CITI BANK, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested leave to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The proceeding has been referred to the undersigned in

accordance with Local Rule 72-302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Pursuant to federal statute, a filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil

action in a federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The district court may authorize the

commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees or security therefor” by an individual

who submits an affidavit demonstrating his or her inability to pay such fees or give security

therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Case 2:07-cv-00363-GEB-DAD Document 5 Filed 04/19/07 Page 1 of 4
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

 The following cases brought by plaintiff in this court have been dismissed for lack of 2

subject matter jurisdiction: Alfaro v. Social Security Administration, case No. CIV S-06-0294

MCE DAD PS, closed February 20, 2007; Alfaro v. City of Sacramento, case No. CIV S-06-

1355 FCD GGH PS, closed September 6, 2006; Alfaro v. Alcohol and Drug Administration, case

No. CIV S-06-1370 GEB GGH PS, closed October 3, 2006; Alfaro v. Barnicoat, case No. CIV S06-1614 MCE DAD PS; Alfaro v. Miranda, case No. CIV S-06-1687 LKK EFB PS, closed

October 10, 2006; Alfaro v. Rameriz, case No. CIV S-1689 DFL EFB PS, closed December 21,

2006; Alfaro v. Burney, case No. CIV S-01783 DFL EFB PS, closed December 21, 2006; Alfaro

v. Bank of America, case No. CIV S-06-1808 DFL GGH PS, closed December 21, 2006; Alfaro

v. US Bank, case No. CIV S-06-1809 GEB EFB PS, closed December 5, 2006; Alfaro v. Alfaro,

case No. CIV S-06-2460 LKK GGH PS, closed January 26, 2007.

2

Here, plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application reveals that plaintiff is not currently

employed but that during the past 12 months she received money from disability or workers

compensation payments, gifts or inheritances, and other sources. Plaintiff states that she received

$3,548.00 from the State of California, $1,276.00 in Social Security Disability benefits, and an

unspecified amount of “Bond’s pending Direct Deposit from District Court.” Plaintiff states that

she has cash or checking or savings accounts containing $21,000.00, and “2 bond’s pending for

$5,000.” The court finds that plaintiff has made an inadequate showing of indigency, and her in

forma pauperis application should be denied. See Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th

Cir. 1995); Alexander v. Carson Adult High Sch., 9 F.3d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1993).

Ordinarily, the undersigned would recommend that the district judge deny

plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application and grant plaintiff twenty days to pay the filing fee in

full before this case proceeds further. However, as is the case with at least ten other complaints

plaintiff has filed in this court since February 10, 2006, no basis for federal jurisdiction is alleged

in plaintiff’s complaint against defendants Citi Bank and Assistant Manager Michael Castillo,

and plaintiff’s fraud claim does not support any basis for federal jurisdiction.2

Plaintiff alleges as follows: she opened a checking and savings account at a

Sacramento branch of Citi Bank on August 12, 2006; on September 9, 2006, she attempted to

deposit a check or checks into her account and to immediately withdraw the funds; defendant

Castillo, the assistant manager, refused to let her deposit and withdraw funds and said he would

Case 2:07-cv-00363-GEB-DAD Document 5 Filed 04/19/07 Page 2 of 4
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

put a hold on her account until she paid a past due bill on another bank account; she paid the past

due amount and brought defendant Castillo a receipt showing the account was paid; defendant

Castillo still refused to let her deposit and withdraw funds; plaintiff closed her Citi Bank account

on October 3, 2006, and opened a new account at another bank; plaintiff asked Citi Bank to

transfer the money in her closed account to her new Bank of America account and was told she

only had $4.30 in her account; plaintiff deposited large sums on September 9, 2006, and was not

permitted to withdraw the money and should have had thousands of dollars in her account on

October 3, 2006; additional sums pending deposit by direct deposit were never deposited.

On these facts, the undersigned finds that the court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over this action. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946) (recognizing that a

claim is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction where it is “wholly insubstantial and

frivolous” and “so patently without merit as to justify” dismissal for lack of jurisdiction );

Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 543 (1974) (acknowledging that a claim may be dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction if 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 n.6 (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.”).

Based on plaintiff’s history of filing obviously frivolous actions, it would be futile

to grant leave to amend. The undersigned will therefore recommend that plaintiff’s in forma

pauperis application be denied and this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s February 23, 2007 application to proceed in forma pauperis be

denied; and

2. This action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Case 2:07-cv-00363-GEB-DAD Document 5 Filed 04/19/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

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)(1). Within ten (10)

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “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 the District Court’s order. See

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 18, 2007.

DAD:kw

Ddad1\orders.prose\alfaro0363.f&rifpjur

Case 2:07-cv-00363-GEB-DAD Document 5 Filed 04/19/07 Page 4 of 4