Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01715/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01715-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Monica Mitchell
Defendant
Shirly A. Peacemaker
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHIRLY A. PEACEMAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONICA MITCHELL,

Defendant.

No. 2:21-cv-01715-DC-JDP (PS)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

THIS ACTION

(Doc. No. 24)

Plaintiff Shirly A. Peacemaker is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

action. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On December 13, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 24.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff’s mere 

reference to the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and various sections of the 

U.S. Code was insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction, and recommended dismissal of 

this action without prejudice because Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to establish this court has 

subject matter jurisdiction over this action. (Id. at 2.) The findings and recommendations were 

served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 

fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 2–3.)

Case 2:21-cv-01715-DC-JDP Document 28 Filed 01/15/25 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

27

28

2

On December 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and 

recommendations and a second application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. Nos. 26–27.) In 

her objections, Plaintiff does not meaningfully address the assigned magistrate judge’s findings 

and recommendations. Instead, Plaintiff asks the court to issue a default judgment against 

Defendant, which is improper. (Doc. No. 27.) Thus, Plaintiff’s purported objections do not 

provide a basis upon which to reject the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 

objections, the court concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record 

and by proper analysis. 

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 13, 2024 (Doc. No. 24) 

are adopted in full; 

2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to a lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction;

3. Plaintiff’s second application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 26), is 

denied as having been rendered moot by this order; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2025 ___________________________

Dena Coggins

United States District Judge

Case 2:21-cv-01715-DC-JDP Document 28 Filed 01/15/25 Page 2 of 2