Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02225/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02225-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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 ALFARO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2225 GEB EFB PS

vs.

RIO CITY CAFÉ, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant. 

 /

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the

undersigned under Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On November

1, 2007, the court denied plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, but granted her

leave to file an amended, complete application within thirty days. The court also dismissed

plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim and granted her leave to amend. 

Plaintiff failed to submit a completed in forma pauperis application, nor did she submit

an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified by the court in its November 1,

2007, order. Rather, plaintiff submitted a “declaration” alleging that an individual named Mario

Armstrong broke into her apartment, used the bathroom, and tried to cook for one hundred

people. The declaration alleges no jurisdictional basis for this action and fails to state a

cognizable claim for relief. 

Case 2:07-cv-02225-GEB-EFB Document 5 Filed 01/10/08 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without further leave

to amend, and that the Clerk be directed to close this case. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten (10)

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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 10, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02225-GEB-EFB Document 5 Filed 01/10/08 Page 2 of 2